Director of Aviation - Regular Meeting

My name is Kevin O'Neill. I'm the chair, first district at large.

Colleagues? Good morning, Melissa Robinson, vice chair, third district.

Eric Brunch, fourth district. John the Duck in sixth district. They are working.

They are. Lindsay French, second district at large.

Staff?

Bertha Ross, city clerk's office.

Jeff Martin, city manager's office. Andrew Bonkowski, city attorney's office. Amy Guillen, city department.

My colleagues in the rafters here.

Melissa Patterson-Hasleith, our district at large.

Gwent Lucas, the mayor. Crispin Ray, our fourth district at large.

You got everybody? All right. Okay. We do have some holds, so I'm going to read those out. We will be holding... 260711 for one week, 260733 we're going to hold off docket, and 260739 we're going to hold for one week. So I would go for the... Can I ask 260733?

733? We're holding off docket? That's what it says, yes.

So their water services is renegotiating that agreement with the city of Riverside. So once they get that finalized, we'll put it back on DACA. They just don't know how long it's going to take at this point.

Okay. Was that yesterday?

Yeah, that was related to me yesterday.

Mayor Rose on Friday, so I just want to make sure. Okay. Mr. Chair, you're still going to read 260-711, no? No. Say that again? You're still going to read 260711 and allow testimony? Oh, yes, yes.

I didn't mean to hold that till the end, so yes. Okay, so I think we'll start with 260711? Yes.

260711, authorizing the Manager of Procurement Services to execute a one-year contract renewal in the amount of $1,942,859 with Last Parking Midwest to continue performing curbside traffic management and traffic control responsibilities and authorizing the Manager of Procurement Services to amend and renew the contract for up to four additional one-year terms without City Council approval.

Is anybody here to speak to this?

Pardon me?

Oh, okay. No, I think these are on a different one. Yes, Peyton Smith is going to talk, wants to speak on this.

Hi, my name is Peyton Smith. I'm an organizer for SCIU Local 1, and I'll be reading testimony for a traffic control officer at the airport for LAZ. Good morning. My name is Lauren Owens. I'm a traffic control officer at MCI and have worked for LAZ for two years. In my time there, we have done a great job managing traffic, and we receive compliments for our work. However, I feel there needs to be guidelines and regulations in place to help protect their employees and make sure they're mentally and physically safe. Our job is very demanding and puts a lot of stress on our health, which includes working eight hours on concrete in all weather conditions while constantly remaining vigilant of drivers and pedestrian safety. We are not just on our feet, but constantly walking up and down to speak to drivers and direct traffic in both extreme hot and extreme cold. We are very limited on short breaks throughout the shift. This causes stress on our bodies and can put others at risk. LAS is also deceptive about the amount of hours employees receive. We are hired with the expectation that we will receive a full work week, but our hours are frequently cut short and we have to clean the break room or other chores to receive a full eight hour work day. Others are hired with the promise of a full work week only to find that they aren't scheduled for more than a few shifts a week. In an effort to develop guidelines, we decided to organize. Through a union, we would have a say in what those would be as the people who are actually working in the terminal. I have seen fellow employees assaulted or threatened with weapons. I am a single mother and want to feel secure that I will make it home. We aren't trained on de-escalation and safety issues. When we went public with the campaign earlier this year, Laz did not listen to our concerns. Because one of our issues was safety, they told us to use wands while on the crosswalk. They are heavy and put extra strain on our bodies when directing traffic. We did not ask for that, and Laz did not ask us how we wanted to improve safety. We want to open a dialogue with management, but feel as though we can't. We are frequently reprimanded and feel as though we have to walk on eggshells. In my two years at LAS, I have seen many qualified officers either quit in frustration or fired for minor infractions. Also, following our organizing campaign announcement, LAS started meeting with traffic control officers one-on-one and telling them that organizing was not a good idea. Management also called the airport police on our organizer, who was trying to talk to employees after the shifts. They constantly changed the rules that are more difficult for us to keep up with, leading to more discipline and confusion about how to approach situations properly.

Sorry, I appreciate that. Wait, two minute limit. We need to put that up. Alright.

Do you have a two minute timer?

I'm keeping it right here because when I clicked it, that's when the system went.

So I don't want to miss anything. Okay. All right. Well, we just want to make sure everybody has a chance.

I'm watching it.

You just nodded at me. Make sure you let me know. Christian Rock. Didn't know your name was Christian.

I probably should have just written Chris. That's what I go by anyway. Good morning. My name is Chris Rack. I am a vice president with SEIU Local 1. I'm the director for Missouri and Southern Illinois. Good to be able to address everybody today. Workers at last have been organizing with our union for about six months. And Lauren, whose testimony my colleague Peyton just read, really wanted to be here personally today, but she wasn't able to be here because she's at work at the airport. One of the main issues security officers face, for obvious reasons, is urgency to come to work. Posts need to be filled for the safety of all the visitors and travelers to the airport. Sometimes that results in employers establishing attendance rules that just aren't realistic or fair. And last has a policy that if you're going to call off, you need to give 24 hours advance notice. I would just ask the members of this committee, how many of you know 24 hours in advance if you're going to have a stomach flu or a migraine? How many parents can know 24 hours in advance if their child can't go to school because they're ill? So one employee, Ashley, who also wanted to be here but she's sick today, she was with LAS for two and a half years, the last six months at the airport. She was recently terminated, and the reason for the termination, or at least the final cause, we're not sure of all the details on what happened with her, but we know that the reason for the termination that she stated was that she didn't give 24 hours notice when she had a family emergency. If Ashley had access to a grievance procedure where there could be a review of the situation to make sure it's appropriate and fair, she might still be working there today. This organizing campaign is not as much about compensation as it is about a voice on the job. LAS workers, you know, from Peyton's testimony, they have concerns about safety. They have concerns about just work-life balance and the impact on them physically for the work. And so they're asking to, they want to organize. Many of them want to organize, but there is not currently a fair process in place that allows them to. Per Lauren's testimony, she mentioned some of the things that she believes LAS has done to discourage people from engaging union representatives and from taking action to build their union. What we would ask... Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. I'm sorry. We have a two-minute limit. Thank you. That was fast.

Sorry.

It was quick.

All right.

If there's no other testimony, I don't see anybody with their hand up or anything. So I would go to our floor and talk about this with us here. Anybody have any comments?

I had a comment for our colleague. I know that you had, Councilman Duncan, sponsored a resolution to support the organizing of the LAS workers. Can you give us an update on where we are with that?

Yeah, I mean, I think we heard from two organizers from SEIU just now that they're continuing to try to organize. What I would like to see is that we allow, we encourage SEIU and LAS to have a joint meeting before we pass anything out.

Do we have a timeline? I do. Okay, thank you.

My goal here is to make sure, apparently there is no process in place. They haven't talked, I mean they're not talking, they haven't set up an organizing process. I was told by Laz that their people don't want to organize. Okay, so I'm going to give them the opportunity to work together with the SEIU to create a vote, and if that vote, in a fair manner, and I want them, I want SEIU and LAS to get together, figure out a process, And then we'll hold this off until they come back and tell us that they have arranged for a process that's fair and just so. I think right now we hold it off docket or just hold it for two weeks and have them come back to us and let us know what the process is, what the timeframe is going to be, et cetera. Yes, sir.

TO COUNCIL MEETING WEEKS OR TO CALENDAR WEEKS? GOOD QUESTION.

WE HAVE NEXT WEEK, AND THEN WE'RE OFF, RIGHT? OR IS IT... RIGHT. SO THAT MEANS IT'LL BE THE 29th. THE 29th. DO WE WANT TO GIVE THEM A WEEK TO CREATE THE PROCESS SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE A VOTE, OR DO WE WANT TO GIVE THEM A FULL THREE WEEKS TO... THREE WEEKS. I THINK THREE WEEKS. EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT. LET'S... YES, SIR. CHRISTOPHER. OH. I'M TALKING TO YOU.

OH. COUNCILMAN RAY. Thank you. Just my comment was, these are very loud, my comment was Mr. Rack and his testimony was just about to state what their specific request was. I would just ask, I would like to know what that specific request was going to be.

Can you email us?

Well, you can come up and you got another two minutes.

We're going to give you 30 seconds. I'm asking for an answer to my question.

I thought I talked fast enough to get through the whole thing in two minutes. I apologize. I would love to make sure there's a dialogue between us and Laz to figure this out. I think one week is not realistic. I think three weeks would allow us to know where we stand. Exactly.

Okay. I take the chair's prerogative and we're going to hold this for...

One last thing. Mr. Chris, can you just please email us what those issues are? Can you email those to the council? Because I believe that's what Councilman Rhea was asking.

Absolutely. Okay, thanks. Okay, fair enough. So we're going to hold this for three weeks, and that'll be on the 29th of September that we come back, and we'll ask you all to come back for that. All right. Done. Next ordinance.

And you're holding off docket 268-733.

You're doing 733 off docket. 739 is one week. And we're on to 718, and it's a committee sub.

All right.

And at this point, we have not gotten the actual committee sub, have we?

I think it's the wrong one.

We have two, I think. I think it's an updated version.

Where's the other side?

Oh, there's two companion subs?

Companion or? Sure, I've had that before. Who's the second one?

Okay. You've got one?

Which one is I think I don't know the mayor had one and a councilman Duncan had one Is yours the directing the cinema and it's your complete design work This is a new one

I was confused.

We need a little confirmation here. Andrew, can you tell us? Sure. This one that starts off with $51 million on the top is the mayor's? No. The committee substitutes that.

Oh, this is the extra part of it. I'm confused. There is an ordinance. The ordinance was sponsored by the city manager's office. They have a committee substitute with a small change. It tweaks one of the agreements to note it as a pass-through agreement as opposed to a separate one. There's a separate committee substitute that you'll see the title starts with directing the city manager to complete, etc. I understand Council Member Duncan will be motioning to introduce that committee substitute.

And the mayor's office is just that one tweak. That's the city manager's office. It's the mayor's version of one tweak.

That was the city manager's.

That's the city manager's. But didn't you have a...

He's not a committee member.

I'm assuming that's... That is the version... Just let them read it.

So I'm not reading this one yet until he introduces it, correct?

Okay.

Committee sub ordinance 260718, estimating revenue in the amount of $51,571,000 in the taxable special obligation series 2027 project fund. Okay. and appropriating the same to Roy Luminary Park project, authorizing the director of finance to close accounts upon project completion, declaring the intent of the city to reimburse itself from bond proceeds for certain expenditures, reducing appropriations and water revenue bonds, series 2025 fund, and fund number 8082, and appropriating the same PROJECT REDUCING APPROPRIATIONS IN THE SEWER SERVICES FUND, NUMBER 8110, APPROPRIATING THE SAME TO THE PROJECT ESTIMATING REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $28 MILLION IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT GRANT FUND, FUND 3091, AND APPROPRIATING THE SAME PROJECT AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO A CHARITABLE FUNDING CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH DTC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATING REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $15 MILLION IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT GRANT FUND, fund number 3091 and appropriating the same to the project for funds received for DTC community development and Missouri Department of Economic Development related to allocations of funds from the state of Missouri in support of the project authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute a $15 million pass-through agreement with DTC Community Development on behalf of the Missouri Department of Economics Development in support of the project authorizing the city manager to execute amendment number five of a design professional contract with HNTD. the court for $6,907,670 for design services inspections and testing during construction of the project authorizing the city manager to execute amendment number three of a contract with project first for $1,819,000. for the project management services for projects authorizing the city manager to execute a change order for a contract in the joint venture of J.E. Dunn and Clarkson Construction Company for a total amendment not to exceed $148,900,000 for construction related to the project and authorizing the ordinance as having an accelerated effective date.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Jeff Martin with City Manager's Office. I'll lead with apologizing to the clerk for the length of that title of the ordinance. Appreciate her getting through it. I have with me today Kimberly Clark with the Finance Department and also Anne Holliday with Downtown Council, one of the members of the project partners for this particular project. This ordinance before you today allows us to move forward with the Roy Blount Luminary Park project with a phased approach. So this will create momentum for the project while utilizing the funding that we have currently in place to the best of its ability. So phase one of this project was designed to utilize funding that is currently available and that has time restrictions within it. So it will construct three blocks for supporting the tunnel infrastructure. So this will be from Broadway all the way over to Baltimore. So this includes the areas underneath Bartle Hall and the Grand Ballroom for the tunnel and safety improvements. It will construct one block, block one of the lid with the park on top between Walnut, or excuse me, between Wyandotte and Baltimore. It will create the tunnel systems building, which will support the entire project from Broadway to Grand once completed in future phases, and will also construct six blocks of roadway work along I-670 for the entire length of the project from Broadway to Grand, allowing us to utilize the Missouri Department of Commerce, Missouri Department of Transportation COST SHARE AGREEMENT. SO THIS GRAPHIC HERE SHOWS THE EXTENSE OF THE WORK. AS I MENTIONED, THE TUNNEL IMPROVEMENTS START ON THE BROADWAY END, EXTEND UNDERNEATH BARL HALL AND THE BALLROOM. THIS IS THE AREA SHOWN IN YELLOW. It will construct the first block of the park, extending that tunnel from Wyandotte over to Baltimore. So that's the area shown in red. So this actually constructs over 50% of the tunnel for this entire project. So it's a large portion of that work. And then it also completes the roadway and drainage replacement along I-670 from Broadway all the way over to Grand Boulevard. So that additional area is shown in the gray on this. So those improvements underneath Bartle Hall and under the Grand Ballroom are some key safety improvements for the existing tunnel that is there today. So the graphic shows the lighting improvements along the edges. Those are the yellow dots shown throughout this. It'll actually construct median safety walls, barrier walls, running from Broadway all the way over underneath the extents of Bartle and the Grand Ballroom, and then continue on over to Baltimore. So what this does is it provides separate smoke chambers within the tunnel for safety, as well as emergency pass-through doors shown in green along the extents of this route. The lighting improvements allow for more even light throughout the length of the tunnel as motorists and then exit during all times of the day to not have significant changes in the lighting as they move through here. It also adds fire protection systems with standpipes to allow more successful and efficient firefighting underneath the tunnel aspect itself for the entire length than actually a fire mist suppression system underneath the block one between Wyandotte and Baltimore. So a lot of important improvements for safety aspects within this first phase of this project. So you can see here, this is a rendering of this block one, shows a great deal of the amenities that we're able to accomplish within here. This creates a pathway from essentially the front door of the grand ballroom all the way down to Baltimore with an ADA accessible path along this over 40 foot elevation change. You also see the tunnel services building that will be constructed alongside the northern edge of Truman Road, We're alongside the Blue Cross Blue Shield building, and this will actually serve the fire life safety aspects of the tunnel throughout. I'll have Anne Holiday jump in with some additional amenities we have here.

Yeah, let's go to the next slide, Jeff. So when it comes to the programming and activation and how this park will actually be used, we feel that one block becomes, it's like a microcosm for the entire park. where there's multiple programming opportunities from play areas to event spaces, performances, and food trucks. If you might recall from when we were with you last October, the concept is that a community-based 501c3 will operate and manage the park. You can look at this slide and see some of the more detailed activation ideas that we have. One of our donors has generously contributed funds that would cover the first two years of operations at the startup nonprofit while our programming ramps up and provides us the opportunity to develop earned income from things like event rentals, receptions, brand activations, all scheduled closely in coordination and partnership with the convention center. And then with these revenue opportunities and then the decreased costs, since we're not doing all four blocks at once, we feel we'll be able to privately fund and operate this one block park, which is what we stated we would do in the development agreement that we all completed last fall.

So while just a single block with the block one, it's really a key block within this project. So connecting the elevation chains from Wyandotte down to Baltimore and getting those pedestrians just a block away from the streetcar, really tying into downtown and that key spine. You can see here from this aerial rendering all the activation areas within here that Dan was mentioning earlier. So it's got a serpentine path that allows for ADA access to traverse that almost 40-foot elevation change through there. And then the areas shown in yellow are different surface treatments. whether it's for some of the play amenities, whether they're a padded safety surface or just a different stamped concrete to establish a varying aesthetic as they continue down through the path. This really has a great rendering showing some of the activities for children, activation within there, spaces for art. spaces for play, areas to gather for people to sit and enjoy the views, as well as really just getting the outdoors and the greenery. So not a lot of green space in downtown Kansas City, so this really provides a big improvement to that for the city, especially being an area that's currently open to the interstate. If anybody's walked these bridges recently, just the amount of noise coming off there with the vehicles underneath. So this will really cap that off and provide a great improvement to that. So just a few more renderings showing how the space could be activated with different opportunities for rentals, have different gatherings for folks, as well as places for families to gather and enjoy the outdoors here.

So I'm pleased to give you an update on where we are with the civic and philanthropic fundraising. And the civic and philanthropic community is thrilled to move forward with this project. The model works well. What we're looking at is, you know, the public dollars from KCMO, MoDOT, and the federal government covering the cost of the infrastructure and safety improvements that Jeff mentioned, while private funding would focus more on the park and its amenities and long-term management and operations. And I don't know if you had a chance to see some of the letters that were given. I have copies here if anyone's interested topped off by an informative letter by the chairman of the Missouri Highway Commission, really emphasizing the importance of this collaboration and the magnitude of the largest cost share that MoDOT has done in their history for this project. But back to the fundraising, as we have secured $40 million in total commitments for this project from 35 funders to date. As you can see highlighted on the slide in salmon, those are new or reinvested funders since October 2025. So in less than a year, we've engaged 17 new or reinvested funders. who've contributed to that additional 10.5 million in capital. We're also very pleased with the commitment of our co-chairs leading this campaign, Tim Dunn from JE Dunn, Jeff Jones, the previous CEO of H&R Block, and also Curtis Campbell, the current CEO of H&R Block, and then Edward Merriman. They recently, all three, committed in aggregate $3 million to show their commitment to this project, and they are actively assisting us as we return to our existing donors to It requests their investment in which they are agreeing to. So more specifically, we have five active discussions going on with existing donors that could lead to an additional $3.6 million. We have two proposals out right now that could raise an additional $1 million. And then we have 14 active prospects that could bring in another $9.6 million. That's all something we can do in the next three to six months. The more strategic outlook is that as this is under construction and as it comes online, the private sector, like in Missouri, show me. Would they like to touch it, feel it, see it, know that it's happening? So those dollars, we're confident, will keep coming in once we have a tangible product.

So now is really a key moment for this project. So we have some external constraints that are coming up for the funding and the start of this work. So within the federal dollars, we currently have $28.6 million in a federal grant earmark that was provided to us. Those funds must be obligated by September 30th of 2026. We have been working with MoDOT very diligently over the last six weeks to get all of the information together and be ready for that obligation So in order to meet that obligation, we need funding approval this week that will allow us to finalize all of our submittal documents and submissions needed into MoDOT so they can submit concurrence to the Federal Highway Administration so that then those funds can be obligated the third week of September. So this is really a key time for that. We also have two Missouri Department of Economic Development grants that need reauthorization each year with the state budget. So those were recently renewed through amendments in June of this year. And so we need to spend those funds within this current state budget, or we run the risk of losing those funds as well. So MoDOT also has a very large project that will start work in 2028 in the northeast corner of the loop. So that project will replace bridges over the railroad tracks. that are just south of the river, that will provide some additional constraints for movements through the downtown loop area. So we must have 670 back open for traffic by August 1st of 2028 in order for them to complete their project. given the timing of this, the timeframe needed to do the construction on this, we must start work this year in order to meet that deadline. And in phasing this down to this smaller area, phase one with the single block allows us to also remove a constraint with the traction power substation relocation for the streetcar project and delay that to the future phase, do the long lead time for that. So a lot of information so far here. Funding, we've got a lot of funding support on this. So as we mentioned, we've got a lot of state and federal dollars in place. So as you can see here up in the upper left-hand corner of this slide circled in red, so these are our federal and state commitments. So we have the $28.6 million of of federal earmark, which is how we'll be utilizing for this phase one construction. We've got $28.6 million of DED money to the city of Kansas City, Missouri, that we'll utilize not only for design, four million's already been utilized for that, but the remaining 24.6 will be utilized for construction of the phase one. We've got an additional $15 million of DED funds that downtown council was able to secure uh through their efforts um that will go towards construction phase one and then we have a modoc cost share that cost share is the largest to say history uh over 31 and a half million dollars with this phased approach we're able to utilize a little over 12 12.26 million of that of that state cost share and modot has told us that the remaining of that cost share will be available for the remaining activities as we proceed with future phases of this project. As you can see, over $103 million, almost $104 million of state and federal funds for this project so far. On the city commitment side, To date, the city is working on committing $80.8 million of funds, so we do need the approval today to access the additional $51.57 million of special obligation bond funds. So when we came to you back in October of last year, we had contemplated the entirety of $80 million going towards this project, not only for the design, but also for the construction. So at that time, council authorized $15 million of special obligation bonds for the design efforts. It goes to 100% design, so that work is underway now and progressing to completion. They also requested that the project partners, downtown council, and the Port Authority raised an additional $50 million of private funds, and that would allow us to in turn come back to you and request access for the remaining $65 million of those special obligation funds. So as Ann mentioned, to date they've raised $40 million of that 50, approximately 80% of that request. So we are coming into the day requesting the access 80% of that $65 million of special obligation funds. just over $51.5 million. That 80% mark allows us to move forward with this construction. We also have a little over $4 million of water department funds in here, and this is to construct a replacement transmission main underneath the I-670. They currently have two large transmission mains that cross underneath the interstate pavement that were constructed in the 60s, whenever 670 was built, now is the ideal time for those nearing end-of-life assets to get replaced while we're digging up the interstate, having a shot at the traffic, and get those replaced successfully. This will also allow us to construct a parallel sewer main underneath the I-670 around the Walnut area. So this will be utilized for future sewer conveyance as they continue with the overflow control program throughout the entire city. kind of the breakdown of the funding there. So with this you'll see that we're requesting $28 million of the private funds go to this phase one of the construction cost. And so that $28 million is of the 40, a portion of the $40 million has already been utilized for design services that have been completed to date. There's also restrictions on some of that $40 million that has been raised for work that is to be completed in the future phase. The $28 million reflects what we're able to access for the construction. We've also accessed a million dollars already that has gone for the design. So the ordinance appropriates funds to five different areas here. I'll ask Ms. Carter to provide some information regarding the funding.

So the analysis shows projected revenues that will be generated to cover the existing debt in the convention sports complex fund is as well as this new proposed to the existing debt includes Bartle Hall Bernie Ellis garage. South loop which is the design phase 18th and buying garage some older did which is 88 compliance and some in this auditorium related to it and this also includes the the new $20 million appropriation for the downtown stadium. So this particular analysis shows about a 28 year term. With debt service beginning in fiscal year 28, interest-only payments for the first seven years and principal kicks in in year 2035. And the reason for this is as old debt falls off, that's when the principal and interest starts to be collected for the debt service once we hit 2035. And so to make sure, to remind everyone, so if the council decides to proceed with this project, once the ordinance is approved, you're allowing the up to $51 million to be expended, which will leave a hole in our coffers, which means I'll come back in the spring and issue special obligation bonds for $51.57 million in bond proceeds to reimburse the city of the hole that we're going to create for this particular project.

So timeline for this, so obviously we made a lot of progress since we were here in the fall of last year, moving into that final design and path forward with construction. So with approval this week, we would move forward with the obligation of those federal funds. That would allow us to do the full closure on I-670 starting later this year. Approximately two and a half years of construction following that was, I mentioned before, we have to have the interstate section of 670 back open for the traveling public by August of 2028, and then we will complete the park topside improvements following that over the next half year or so. And so following that, and we reopen in August of 2028, then MoDOT will move forward with their project, will allow us to move forward with phase two when funds are available. And they were completed with the project they have. So with all that and giving up our time constraints, we are asking for an advance on the ordinance here today so we can go to full council in order to meet those federal obligation timelines with the state. So with that, I'd be happy to answer questions you all have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Martin, ACM Martin, thank you. I want to provide a critique in this presentation, specifically regarding, you know, I expect Ms. Holliday to lobby this body about the project. What I expect from staff is to understand what are the nuts and bolts of this project, what are our risks and liabilities, and what are the assets that we are assuming in this project, and how is that going to affect our budget long term? We talked previously regarding some of the assets that we could assume regarding retaining walls and how those retaining walls are ending their near life and how are we going to pay for that in the future. I would have appreciated that in this presentation today. I also, I would like us to dig deeper on what is this hole that we're talking about and what are our needs. I still don't have a clear understanding of what our convention needs are going to be I've heard anecdotally from colleagues that it could be upwards of $400 million that we need to provide. So what does that actually do to our ability to address those deeds? Here in City Hall building, there were floors that went without air conditioning for a month. I know that our conventions desperately need um updates and maintenance do we have a clear understanding where this 400 million dollars is going to come from and how and what is it what what does this do to our timeline for that this is what i expect from staff i don't want to get lobbied for a project i want to understand what is this going to do to um for our city to if we if we move forward with this and i just want to say that the project is cool i feel the same way about this i feel about downtown baseball sounds great What is the return on investment, and what does this do to our ability to address other needs that are actual needs, because this feels like a want? So that's what I'd like to hear, and I know I gave you a lot, but before, I also have a question for Ms. Holliday regarding fundraising, but what are our bonds versus our needs? And I'll start there. If this puts a hole, I know that we passed $100 million for city infrastructure and for conventions. How much need do we have? And where does this leave us to address that need?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Tammy Queen, Assistant City Manager. So I think first, we don't have the full scope of what the convention center needs, they are in the middle of an analysis with a consultant that will provide a full report of what their full needs are. I think in terms of what does it do for our ability to fund those needs, you saw a couple slides back, the cash flow for, yeah, the convention and sports complex fund. So the choice to use $51.57 million for this project takes that away from other projects. And that is a choice that we are bringing to you. There is no further real capacity in this fund. until you get to that 2035 timeframe. And that 2035 timeframe is when the Bartle Hall expansion over the highway debt and the ballroom expansion debt rolls off. And so there is significant capacity that's generated at that time. But using this money for this project now will take away anything that you could do for the convention center. So it's really a choice of what you all want to fund.

What are our immediate needs for the Convention Center and how does this impact our ability to address those?

Closer to the mic.

What are our immediate needs for the Convention Center and how does saying yes to this project impact our ability to address those?

I think I don't have the full list of immediate needs, but I do know that voters just approved the GEO bond issue that is for convention facilities. I think about 75 million of it will likely go to various needs within the convention center. And hopefully that will get them through, you know, the immediate things because those bonds will be issued this year. So that will hopefully get them a little boost and keep them going for a little while.

Thank you, ACM Queen.

Thank you. And just to also build on some of what my colleague just talked about, looking at the Convention and Sports and Complex Fund, we will be having in the third district an empty sports complex soon. And this takes away revenue to be able to address some of those needs as well. This presentation, was this emailed to us? It's not? docketed, and that's concerning.

So I did not email it to you. I apologize for that. I did send it to the clerk yesterday. It went through late due to the email outage. So I wasn't able to send out emails until late in the day. So I sent it very late in the day to the clerk. I apologize for that. So I can definitely send it out to the committee following this.

Okay. Can you get that posted to the item by the end of the day?

I posted it once. Yeah.

Okay. Because I think it's important for the public to have this information in real time. I continue to have questions about access, right, to this facility. And so with these agreements and with the great work that you all have done in raising $40 million, congratulations. We ask that you raise private capital. You went out and did that. I do want to track who will be having access to this facility if this does pass, and the commitment to the donors, the private donors, what commitment regarding access have we offered to them in comparison to the public.

So we have a memorandum, I think, that we started two years ago related to the community impact of this project. And it always has been envisioned as a place that is welcoming for all in the center of our community. So we will be balancing the need to create revenue to operate it with the need and desire to activate it as a place for our entire community.

Does our parks department have any authority with this agreement to be able to program the space?

We did reach out to the parks department regarding inclusivity plans, and so we have their information. They actually weren't able to provide us as much information as I wanted to create an inclusivity plan for this park.

So as contemplated, this park will be operated through an agreement with the Downtown Council Community Development Incorporated. So it will not be activated by the Parks Department, but we'll definitely reach out to them for input and guidance on that activation.

The Parks Department is our connection to public access. That's how we're organized to make sure our community has access to these spaces. So I would like to see a prominent role that they're playing as it relates to ensuring public access. So I'll work on that as this moves forward. The financials, if you could go back to the... and I'm gonna build upon what my colleague talked about, and that's the whole. So if we decide to move forward on this project, our member from our finance team stated that you will be coming back to us, asking us to fill that hole. How big is the hole? This is one project. So based off of other ordinances and decisions that this body has made, what is the total amount?

So the treasurer's office will be coming back to the committee if the project is approved so that we can issue bonds to cover the proceeds of $51.57 million. So you're going to advance appropriate the funds this week or whenever you all to make that decision. And then I'll come back to, as a project, to issue the bonds to put it back into our coffers. So they're not expending funds, if that's what you were referring to.

Yes, I'm questioning... for this project, but are there other projects that you will, what's the total amount of the whole for the corporation? And so Brenton is.

So what our treasurer was referring to is more of the estimating revenues and appropriations process. We have to backfill that in the spring with bond proceeds, and we do that every year when we estimate and appropriate. That was what was in reference to when that comment was made earlier.

I just don't want to make this decision in isolation. So again, building upon what Councilman Duncan talked about, we need to see the full picture of what that looks like for our special obligation bonds. And that's what I'm requesting. Okay. Okay, so you're going to provide that?

Yes, we'll provide that.

Okay. And then you talked about the deadline for September 30th. When were we made aware of the September 30th deadline with the feds?

So that discussion with Missouri Department of Transportation really came to the top of mind, I would say, in June, late June of this year. And that's when we moved forward very judiciously with a phased approach to this in order to meet that deadline for this particular obligation.

So let me get this straight. June of 2026. Correct. The federal government told us we had until September 30th to spend our money.

It was part of the agreement that the city signed for the federal earmark. And it was always out there. It was always part of that agreement with the federal government and Missouri Department of Transportation.

Which was when was the agreement?

When was it an earmark? Probably 2024, probably 2024 timeframe.

Okay. And so this is the problem. Because, you know, you want this advanced. We knew in 2024 that this was coming. We start talking about it in June and now we're kind of like, rush, rush, rush, we need you to do this because we don't want to lose the money. And so that creates feelings of, gaymanship and it creates a sense of do we have our staff and our team that's giving the council the information that we need in a timely fashion to make a judicious decision. And so there's questions that arise there as well.

Yeah, with the, I'm sorry, didn't mean to interrupt. No, go ahead. So with the council schedule throughout the month of August, we anticipated needing to introduce ordinance early which we started at the beginning of August and was held for the second reading and then obviously the off week and that's how we get to this week with the advance.

It would just be great. This is our second bite at this funding, the $65 million. When you came originally, it was, okay, go out and raise this $50 million or how much ever the number was and come back to us because we have a September 30th deadline that we have to reach. And I think that that will help all of us to be on the same page, to understand our commitments. The challenge, you know, is we, you know, we told you to go raise the money. You wouldn't raise 80% of it. Now you're coming back for that 80%. So I'll just stop there.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I just want to thank you for all the work that you've put into this, the years of work that has gone into this. And then looking at this realistically and looking at the funding, and seeing what we can really bite off, what we can really build, what we can really do. And the majority of that most expensive portion is the tunnel. And a lot of that funding, the federal and state funding, Missouri Department funding, the DED funding, is really going towards that tunnel and building the tunnel. And so I just want to make that very clear and that the money that we really stand to lose is $103 million, which is a huge chunk of money when we're really talking about this project and just our commitments and what we said we're going to do and what we said we're going to build and going to the state, going to, you know, the federal government and getting these commitments and going out and raising the private funds. We told you we would give you so much, you know, to go forward with design, and then we need to come back with the private funding. You've now come back with the private funding, you know, 80% of that. So now you're asking, you know, to fill our role in that as well. And I just, I want to talk about some of the issues of using the convention and tourism funds, the concerns around that. I've been actually working and going to a lot of those visionary sessions with the convention, with the consultant that we have for the convention center. And so a big portion of that is looking at and reimagining what the convention center would be and what it could be and really being that kind of destination front door to Kansas City and embracing that and a lot of that looking at that is the connectivity and the continuity that you have between the pieces of the convention center right now we have a ballroom we have the convention we have like hotels but there's not a lot of continuity and I attend a lot of functions there. Everybody knows that my daughters play volleyball. So we were there at least three times a year, 60 some thousand people, um, come each time. And when they arrive, there's no kind of grand entry or any sort of kind of place that shows you, Hey, you've arrived here. You've arrived to the convention center. We've given you, kind of a place to enter or kind of that connectivity between what we're doing at Barney Alice is what we're trying to create as that front door. This would be the front door for the ballroom itself. And it's something that's been talked about within that master plan too, adding a lot of green infrastructure, adding that passive and active recreation, adding, I mean, some of the Benefits for this luminary park is also some of the things we're talking about as far as reducing the urban heat effect, the island effect, and what urban parks do for that. And that it can actually lower temperatures 3 to 5, sometimes 10 degrees within the urban environment, just having an urban park. It filters, like you talked about, air pollution and noise pollution. It creates community connectivity. It adds health and mental benefits. So we all know all of that. I'm just saying, when you're talking about using convention and tourism, I think this really fits into the long-term vision of what the convention and tourism center, like the convention center, is looking to do, which is creating that continuity, that connectivity, that entry into the city while also adding the active and passive space. Does that make sense? Okay. And then as far as the financing, like we had said, I'm just really worried about what we're standing to lose versus what we decided and we committed to put in. And yes, we're coming up to a deadline, but we also were there earlier in June, but we said, hey, let's hold off. Let's get some more private funding. came through with that commitment. So now we're kind of up to that deadline. We knew that deadline was coming down, that we would have the chance to lose this funding then. And we said, hey, let's wait and raise that private funding. And so that has been done. So just want to make sure that

I have a few questions, statements. First off, I want to go back to the private funding. When you came to us the first time and you asked, you had, I can't remember, was it $21 or $29 million already raised, and now we're at $40 million. But my understanding, I'm assuming you're counting $5 million of that which came from the Malouf family for the... And then you said there was a donation for two years of maintenance costs, and I'm assuming you counted those in there. So you're taking $7 million of the $9 million you raised that's not going towards the construction of this project. And it bothers me that only $28 million of the monies that you raised is going towards the construction end of this project, because at the end of the day, That's the important part right now is building this thing out. And I think that's somewhat kind of dismissive of the actual project because, I mean, we're talking about $40 million, but in reality, we're only talking about $32 million. So that's $3 million more raised for the project construction than we initially thought. I'm going to talk about some other things too here because... We are spending $130 million on Barney Alice Plaza. Now we're talking about spending $160 million on the LID, the Luminary Park. Now we've got $300 million being spent on parks. We have a lot of suppositions of what's going to happen, but we don't have a lot of hardcore facts. And I think every time we do a project, it comes with risk, and I get suppositions. This is... This is monies that we don't really have. And we have so many needs in this city. And none of this has an ROI attached to it, right? This is kind of just amenities. We're not going to raise any money. And any money we raise is going to be for the maintenance of the project. And if that's at $1.2 million a year, I understand the full breadth of the maintenance. And that, I assume, includes programming, security, et cetera. then we as a city fall, if that isn't done, then we fall back as the responsible owners of the project. And I think also, Councilman Duncan mentioned that we are going to, because we're going in and redoing these tunnels, we're going to now own those tunnels and will be responsible for the maintenance on those tunnels, if I understand correctly.

So following the project, so MoDOT will continue to own the interstate, the I-670 pavement itself. The city will take over the maintenance responsibilities of the retaining walls. along there as well as the drainage that is being installed as part of the tunnel system. So very similar to how we are with Bartle Hall and the Grand Ballroom now. So we obviously own all the infrastructure underneath that structure now that supports the Convention Center and Bartle Hall with that. So as we continue to progress the project with future phases, we will continue to expand our ownership of those retaining walls along i-670 so while they're standard retaining walls now they actually become the support for the uh the lid structure itself that the park sits on top so they're really integral uh to the uh to to the park itself as we construct that so do we have an estimated maintenance cost on those tunnels So we estimate the annual cost for the section being built now to be $1.2 million per year. So that includes the monitoring of the systems within there. So we'll actually have a command center that monitors the video feeds as well as the fire life safety aspects of it. So that cost actually does not increase as we continue on future phases. Obviously, the maintenance cost will expand as we continue to construct more. With that full-time monitoring plus 50% of the tunnel being built, we estimate about $1.2 million for the maintenance of the tunnel aspects.

So the $1.2 million on the bottom and the $1.2 million basically on the top.

No, the top.

No, I mean, but the downtown council is going to pay the $1.2 million or find ways to pay the $1.2 million. Is that correct? For the maintenance of the parks.

Our nonprofit will be charged with operating and maintenance of the park.

Okay, but it's about $1.2 million a year.

Our estimate, once it's complete, is to over $3 million a year to properly program, maintain, make it secure, and operate.

And that includes making the park a lot of programming and stuff, right? Correct. That's what it costs. A lot of that costs. Correct. What would be the basic cost if nothing was done up there? Or maintenance? Maintenance.

I don't have that number in front of me. I don't know that if there was nothing done up there, we wouldn't build it.

Well, I mean, OK. I'm just concerned because I don't think the fundraising has gone real well. And if it doesn't go well there, the city's going to be the backstop, right? I mean, if you can't pay it, then we have to fill the gap. And that's where my concern lies.

So can you get closer to the mic?

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess my other problem is the restaurant fund. I know I've talked to the Restaurant Association and I've talked to Visit KC, and this $60 million is going to come out of a fund that pays for the convention facilities, all the maintenance that's needed. And I think Councilwoman French mentioned the great program that Populous is putting together over at the convention facilities. And I agree with her. That's a great program. It's a $400 million program to be the front door of the convention facilities. I get that. Where are we going to get that money? Because we're taking money out of the monies that would go to pay for that. That's now where we're taking money out of and diverting somewhere else. That bothers me. I'm not sure I like that. We have critical needs facing us, and I'm just going to mention some of these things that we're doing, because I think we get lost in all these shiny projects. And right now, we're funding $600 million to the ballpark. We're doing the water treatment plant is a $2 billion expense that I understand. I don't know if anybody from water is here, but I was told that now that that program that at one point we were told that it was going to be a 20-year capacity problem, right? 20 years from now, we're going to have capacity problems at the water department. That has been shortened to 8 to 10 years now. So that's going to come in front of us for a $2 billion water treatment center. We've got the... The next three phases of this project are $50 million each for the three new blocks, right? That's what we're anticipating costs of tomorrow, but that probably is going to be a lot more than that. I'm told it's $50 million per block as we go forward for the additional three blocks.

We estimate between $50 and $60 million per block, yes. Okay.

So I guess... You know, and I've talked to staff, and I mean, you guys know as well as I do, we're facing shortages at City Hall. Our revenues are down. We're gonna have budget cuts next year. The revenue's not coming in like we anticipated. So we're doing all of these things, and this particular project, It's an amenity. It's not a need. And that's what I get nervous on. I love the project. I think everybody likes it. But it's like, when do we tell ourselves we've had enough and where do we come up with the money to pay for it? You can always come up with money to pay for something. But something else suffers because of that. So I would just say that. Councilman, I think you're right. Well, I'm with the committee first. Thanks, Mr.

Chair. You know, we have an opportunity here to invest in a big way in downtown, and I get that that always comes from somewhere else. It's always a bit of a shell game, unfortunately. We've seen the finances that this does work in the long run. As debt is paid off, we have more capacity. The finance department, I think, has done it, and City Manager Queen have done a good job of illustrating that. And we have three or four projects of a similar nature that are going on at the same time in different phases of their lifespan, looking at the impact of urban freeways on our built environment, on our communities, on our neighborhoods. And I want us to continue pursuing those and making these investments that really reimagine what public space should be in a city, rethink how these urban freeways have impacted our quality of life through poor air quality, through traffic, traffic violence, and just by creating rifts in our community. And so this one happens to be one that you know, a U.S. Senator found really compelling. I really hope and I'm going to challenge our staff to continue pursuing with expediency our U.S. Highway 71 Reconnecting Communities Project, as well as our Westside Reconnecting Communities Project, and that this isn't the only one. But this is an important thing. This is going to be a citywide asset. I know it's in downtown. I know it's in the 4th District. But we have to continue investing in those citywide assets. And I don't mean just downtown. I mean we have citywide assets all over the city. And I hope that we can continue seeing the value in those places and the economic vitality that they do bring. Downtown is becoming more of a neighborhood versus the central business district. And a neighborhood really deserves high quality public spaces like this one. I would also say that the city in its history has not been particularly great at creating and programming high quality public spaces in comparison to some of our peer cities. This one is an opportunity to really rethink that. This is the first, I would say, the first shot we've ever had at really creating a formal relationship with an organization whose job is to program a space like this. And I don't want to get caught up in the race to compete with all of our peer cities on pet projects, but If you visit another city that has made an investment and really built something like this, you will see that it is absolutely a tourism draw. Our friends just north of here in Omaha have built a downtown park. that attracts thousands of people every single day and is programmed throughout the week, throughout the day, and is really bringing a lot of value into downtown Omaha. And that's a much smaller city that has really found a way to make make something like this happen now, I will say that that one had a substantially higher amount of money from the private sector. And so I challenge our business community to continue seeing the value in investments like this. That being said, I'm obviously in support of this. I'm going to vote yes today or whatever to get this out of committee. And I'm going to vote for it on Thursday, assuming it does get out of committee. because I see those values and I see the importance of this type of investment. But also, I just want to say that I'm not typically one to fall for the sunk cost fallacy, but this particular project has brought in a substantial amount of money from outside of Kansas City, including unprecedented levels of state money, which is very rare for us to see, as well as some federal money. But most importantly, our business community has come to the table with a decent amount. And our philanthropic community has come to the table with a decent amount of money. And I... I want to see that as something important to us that we value. And for those reasons, I think that we should move forward with investing in this particular park or public space, whatever we want to call it, because we want to make sure that we recognize the importance of that type of investment from the private side. And I challenge the private side to continue making these investments. And not just in downtown, but at 18th and Vine and Swope Park and other places that we do know are important citywide assets. So with that, I'll leave it at that.

Question for Ms. Holliday. You said congratulations on raising $40 million. How did that meet your projection to where you wanted to be today?

I think we're right on track with where we want to be. You know, our goal in the end is to raise a total of $70 to $80 million. And I think it was always understood on the private sector side that usually, you know, that that money is raised as you go because they too want to see a commitment from the public sector to the project.

Thank you. ACM Martin, back to the retaining walls. So I was confused. The retaining walls are about 60 years old currently?

Yeah, the current retaining walls on I-670 were constructed with the interstate system. which was built in the 60s, so we're right coming up on the 60-year mark on those.

And they're nearing their end of life?

They are nearing their end of life, so it's something that, through our analysis, we determined we were not able to leave in place, and therefore being replaced as we go with the construction.

And is that replacement part of the overall cost of this project, or will it have to come out of somewhere else?

No, that's part of that project, as we see now. So the phase one will replace those walls to the Baltimore bridge area. And then as we continue the future phases, we'll continue with those replacements from Baltimore all the way to Grand. As they currently stand, the city will only own and maintain the walls up to Broadway if the project were to move forward today. So we wouldn't take over ownership and maintenance responsibilities of those walls for the future phases until those future phases are constructed.

Thank you. The $3 million a year was a different number than I'd heard before. Does this include the staffing and technology that is going to be required to monitor and operate this? You're talking about a command center. Is that also included in this?

Yeah, the $1.2 million that I stated earlier for the maintenance and operation of the tunnel does include the 24-7 monitoring of that tunnel system. So that's the manpower for that. It also includes... manpower to clean it you know replace lights it basically the general day-to-day upkeep and the kind of the routine maintenance of those of those elements within the tunnel and miss holiday is that is that 1.2 million incorporated in your three million no the three million is to operate and manage and maintain the park Correct. The total top side of the park. So that cost would be borne by the downtown council community development incorporated as part of that ownership and operating agreement. And that is for the full project build out of the park from Broadway all the way over to Grand. So this phase one, with it being just one block of the park, that maintenance and operating costs would be much less than that $3 million per year.

Thank you. I'm going to stick with the numbers that we got, just since we don't understand what maybe it could be $1 million, maybe $3 million, $1.2 for the under operations. We're looking at $4.2. And is the maintenance and agreement finalized? And to Chairman O'Neill's point, if this If we're unable to raise these funds, the city is backing that $4 million, is that correct?

So we have not finalized the operation and maintenance agreement with Downtown Council Community Development at this time. We do have a development agreement in place that contemplates that particular future agreement and will be negotiated during the next two and a half years of construction and put in place.

So we're going to build something without an operation and maintenance agreement?

We will endeavor to get the operation agreement in place before it's open for business, but it is not in place at this time.

And that's an agreement for managing and operating the top side of the park, and it is in process. We do have a draft that's being circulated. I just want a clarification.

Go ahead. That's all I have. Just go ahead.

I just have a question for the $1.2 million that is potentially to maintain the tunnel. I've been told before that, like, that the state helps provide Jackson County funds for maintaining the stadiums and then falls off. Is there an opportunity to work with the state to then look at providing some of those funds for the tunnel itself for yearly maintenance?

That's definitely something we can pursue with them. It's not a discussion we've had to date, but it's definitely something we can ask about.

I'm going to ask the mayor to pop in.

I'll try to be succinct and thank you all for letting me audit today. The mayor didn't appoint me to this committee, which was rude, so I want to get a bite of the apple. And we all thank you for that. I know we'll have a chance to, the rest of us have a chance to vote on this, maybe debate it on Thursday or at a later point. I'll just try to be real quick because the good points have been raised. I am wholly unsatisfied. It's not actually with real anger, although just disappointment. I sent an email to the city manager about municipal auditorium and convention facilities and assistant city manager Queen and the director of conventions on January 16th of 2026, generally asking the question, how will we keep up municipal auditorium? What are the cost estimates and others? And to hear... nine months later just about that we're still evaluating what the answers will be sounds either like we're just exceedingly behind or in some ways that you don't want us to know because here's the thing that I'm actually going to get on a weird soapbox about municipal auditorium in the middle of this is how old 75 years old, 76? We spent 120 or 30 million across the street from it. We're about to spend 51 million, or maybe, down the street from it. We still have incredible need there. And every time we ask about the need of there, plus actual Bartle Hall, And our, mind you, music hall has people going to wicket this week. It actually generates revenue. We just hear, yeah, we're not quite sure. We'll get to you later. To the core of Councilman O'Neill's question, which is how much money are we going to have? The reason I actually care now, instead of saying I'm gone in 11 months, is because I don't want us to hamstring the next council when they say, oh, wow, well, we've got a $40 million repair. We've already spent the bond money here, and we have to use these things to keep things going. Another core point to it, and by the way, there are a whole set of emails between January and February where we asked that question. Either this committee or the other one should have gotten it. The other issue that I have is at least a theory of the case. We were all here two weeks ago talking about baseball. The theory of baseball, 600 million of a city debt obligation. The current currently ordinance before us of $180 million of a debt obligation in greater downtown. Even Barney Alice Plaza, $120 million of a debt obligation. And by the way, Cordish, in case you're all not noticing, they're coming back soon and meeting with all of us now. And we'll look for a deal that includes garages for each, which will probably be $100 million of a previously negotiated debt obligation. If you're not keeping track at home, I probably got to $1 billion of debt And Greater Downtown, I love it. Rode the streetcar this morning, did all of that. But the theory of the case on all of those is that they're generating revenue. Now there's some debate as to how much they will, what's the risk, all of that. On this project, and I share everybody else, love it, I believe in downtown parks, one block, not as much as we all would have hoped, but nonetheless we're supporters generally of it, is that I guess I want people to talk to me about the additive economic development benefit. We have a new office building on one side of this one block. We have a fairly new hotel on the other side of this one block. The aforementioned Cordish is going to come to us, notwithstanding whatever the heck happens with this, and say, we want to build a bunch of towers on both sides of the interstate anyway. By the way, they're going to want Modessa. which redirects almost all income taxes, than the earnings tax to be redirected at about an 80% metric in every property tax known to man. So what are we incenting at a certain point? I think at the core, one has to start to ask, Do we have the money? And I appreciate Councilman Bunch invoking the sunk cost fallacy, although to a different point, because it's very applicable here and in any of our households anywhere. Yeah, if you can only afford 80% of the car, you can't buy the car. It's not mean, bad, whatever. It doesn't mean it's not a good purchase. You just can't do it. And it seems like we keep getting to this point where it just doesn't seem like we structurally have the funding to do it without robbing lots of other sources. And so, you know, I very much understand retaining federal funding and state funding to the extent we can. I will note to the point raised on state money. Let's actually commend ourselves. We're getting more state pledge money out of the Royals project than we actually are out of this. That's great. So therefore, I have belief that we can find a way to get state money in future developments and others. I don't think it ends now. There's talk about state money in the current project that I think will be before us too. But I think we just have to come to some understanding of what we can do. We shouldn't shirk things. I think if you ask the conventions people who are not here right now, hey, do you guys have $100 million of need? I actually, I guess I can ask the assistance. Well, I assume they would say yes. It's not just me talking, but yes. And so there's a real question of if we have that. The final point I'll raise right here. And again, you know, maybe I'll hear a great speech and I'll love this all too on Thursday or whenever we hear it. You know, the last ordinance we had on this was in October of 2000 or 2025. And to this, this to Councilwoman Robinson's point, you know, and we're getting a week or else it all goes away. You know, that's that's really tough. You know, that is the sort of thing that isn't necessarily the greatest for, I think, well thought out decision making. And maybe we had meetings canceled. We can always call a special meeting or you can just email us. a memo about what's going on any day of the week. But, you know, to kind of suggest we're going to blow through a lot of the remaining convention funds and, you know, but we just have to do it or else we lose everything. We'll figure out everything later. Seems to me like somewhat reckless budgeting on our part. I understand everybody's trying their best to keep a good project alive, but we're going to have real choices we make, and those real choices are going to be things that require us to rob from other sources long term. And we have made a lot of very costly choices in recent days, many of which, hell, I've introduced ordinances on. And so I think we just have to ask ourselves at a certain point as a council, can we afford it all? Can we afford a baseball stadium? Can we afford an expanded soccer stadium? Can we afford whatever Cordish is doing and all the new apartment buildings with it? Can we afford 800 grand? Can we afford 16th and Broadway? These are all downtown projects, by the way. Can we afford everything that we are trying to do in this area? And it's not a dislike of parks. Hell, I wish maybe we spent 5 million of this and plant more street trees. which would have a great impact actually on heat island effect and other such issues. But I think we need to look at the money more clearly. I would also say this, and this is perhaps through no fault of anyone's, but as I understand Clyde Warren and the Omaha Project, you just had vastly more substantial private investment. and if the theory of the case was 50 50 in dallas and i think in omaha they almost they at least paid for a substantially greater amount of that then this might be a time that we say how can we try our best to retain the funds and and i understand you're saying that somebody said september 30th although i'd love to see letters and others from them but you could always call them back and say is there more available is there a way that we can You know, get some sort of relationship to retain the funds in the same way we're doing with baseball, by the way, and soccer and everything else, but would look for us to not necessarily just say to the taxpayers. It's only on you to continue funding at the very aggressive clip. We do. particularly when, even if I'm just looking at downtown, we will have very real infrastructure costs, very real need in downtown, and very short order. And it would be the worst thing we could do if we invested in all of this and have a crummy convention center and 75-year-old auditorium that we're under-investing in, that in some way we're trying to market with all this stuff around it. That's all I have, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for your comments. I do have one committee substitute in case, just as this matriculates through, and that goes back to my point of access, ensuring that our Parks Department has at least 10% 30 days of programming at minimum whichever one is greater so I would like that to be in the agreement in terms of programming as you do the in the management contract because I've already stated that the Parks Department is our only way that our residents, that's our lane in terms of access to the public. I am concerned about access to the public. As someone who was a young adult when the Power and Light District was opened, Public access is a point that we don't want to forget. And then I do take issue with juxtaposing this asset with things on the east side. I have real concern as someone who grew up on 33rd and Jackson and represents the east side, when we start talking about 670 and 70 East from 18th Street, when we start comparing this to 18th and Vine, when we start comparing this to 71 Highway, These are two separate things. And so I'm not going to sit here and allow for that narrative and us not to have a real clear distinction that people, if we're going to invest in this, everyone needs to have access to it. So that's one committee. Okay. Can you hold on one second? I'm sorry. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Okay.

So

Secondarily, you know, we need to have a residents first mindset. I'm concerned just to, not to, you know, pile on with what my colleagues have shared, but we have, I believe it's over $400 million of parks deferred maintenance. And so when we think about our residents and our master plan for our parks, those should be assets for our visitors as well, but we are putting all of these resources in one particular area of our community while other areas suffer. So I'm curious as to how we're going to address those, the deficits as we're choosing, you know, winners and losers. We're saying that, hey, our downtown area is more important than other places of our community because we're putting all of this revenue there. Um, and I do, um, you know, go back to this, what we've always, we say a lot and that's, you know, we, you know, buy what we want and then we come back and we beg for what we need. And that's an issue that we don't want to continue to, um, you know, continue to do. We need to really think differently about that, so.

I just wanted a clarification when you said access, meaning I didn't mean transportation access or access to the park. So that was the clarification.

I can kind of play off of that. I can understand what you're saying completely. We had the Northland Soccer Park, and the Parks Department decided not to be involved in that. So we hired a company to come in, and they managed it. But they also, we have issues with participation in the Northland because they let teams in. And I get how that works. But this is a process we have to deal with in our districts. And so it is important that access is. You make a great point.

So do we have a community benefits agreement in the works or anything around?

We've called it a community impact agreement that I think we started moving. Gosh, two or three years ago. And actually, in the development agreement itself, again, that was signed last fall, there are some statements about how often the city can access and use the park for its events. It's not structured through the Parks Department. It's structured directly through the City Council at this time. So we were trying to get to what you're talking about, and I think all that, that's really important to us. That's why... building a park in the center of downtown where there is transit access and there there's also a thought that when you build a park like this it can raise up all parks and the way people use those facilities throughout the community and i think some of our our funders are particularly interested in that aspect as well that's from duncan

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really do appreciate this conversation, and I hope that we bring the same level of scrutiny and questions around financing, investment, and return on investment when we talk about our upcoming Royals financing. You know, I'm going to withdraw my committee sub. I'm comfortable with the one that the city manager provided. I think on this project, that we really, I will challenge Ms. Holliday and the assistant city manager to continue to look at what are these agreements? How do we ensure that we're protecting the city? How do we ensure that we're providing access? I want to reiterate for all the ACMs and directors in the room, I don't want to be lobbied by staff. I want a full accounting of what is our risk. We are ACM Queen said we're making a choice. What is the impact of that choice on the other projects that we're funding and not funding? What is the impact on the accounts we're using? And when we deplete those accounts, what are the projects that don't get funded? That's the type of information that I need to make an informed decision when we talk about stuff like this. I don't want to be lobbied. Not by staff.

Councilman Wright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, just a couple brief thoughts. I sense the anxiety around the big things that we are doing as a city, that we're being asked to do as a city, major investments. I feel that tension, and I think we've all probably asked ourselves very similar questions about debt and financing and credit ratings, all those things. But I don't want to lose sight of the fact that I'm also very excited at how many folks and how many institutions are wanting to invest in Kansas City right now. You know, we probably haven't had this much interest in investing in Kansas City since the Renaissance of the 70s. And, you know, they built a lot of big things back then. And so, I just, I don't want us to lose sight of that. you know whether we approve other things down the road or whatever it might be there's an incredible amount of interest in this community right now and i think that's a testament to our growth and where we're going as a city you know my only frustration with today's conversation is that THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BEGAN BEFORE MANY OF US WERE ON THE COUNCIL. THIS THING GOES BACK TO 2022 AND THE CITY MAKING VERBAL COMMITMENTS ABOUT BUILDING A LID AND FINANCING IT. I JUST SAW A STORY FROM APRIL OF 2022 ON MY PHONE. I will always reserve the right to change my mind with new information, and I think everyone should. But I think this reflects what a lot of folks find frustrating about City Hall, and that's when we get so far afield working with private partners and and staff on a project on a big project and then our support goes from proactive to passive to even opposition and along the way we have had folks who are out there doing what we're asking them to do raising private dollars, staff who are trying to respond, and then we move the goalposts. I think that's frustrating when we do that, and here we are four years later having a very different conversation about this project than we began with. Doesn't mean we can't change minds or tweak things. I would love to see this agreement ultimately include labor harmony between the folks that are going to build it and the folks that are going to pay to build it. I do want a better understanding of some of the financial implications and the risk we're taking on with the infrastructure underground, but I'm still very excited about getting this thing done. And the only thing I'll say on top of that is I don't know what the inflationary costs for construction are right now. My guess, it's probably between 6% to 7%. But every quarter, we miss an opportunity to get to work on something. It is a quarter that we accrue probably tens of millions of more dollars in construction costs and costs on materials. And so I also ask that we keep that in mind as we have an opportunity with the scale back project to get started sooner rather than later. Thank you, sir.

One quick question, Mr. Chair.

Yes.

And that is the full revenue. Like, we do need to know. My previous colleague talks about the maintenance costs, which you guys don't have yet. But we do need to know more of the ROI information. And that's the programming, how much revenue you are projecting. as it relates to the programming, the rentals, things of that nature. One of the things that we're often saddled with on the council is it's our asset. And so when things go wrong, we have to fix it. And we always come back to say, yes, we have an operating agreement, but it's our asset. So just one quick example was $10 million of sidewalk money that we put into our zoo to make things accessible, which is great, but it was because it was our asset. That $10 million was not budgeted for. And so we do need to understand more of the revenue that's going to be coming off of this asset to help us long term. Thanks.

I would just last comment from myself to Councilman Ray's point. I will say in 2022, and I was on the council when we first, as was my colleague, when we first passed this through, it was in a different environment. There was more money in the, you know, we had millions of dollars in AR money, American recovery money. Things changed. And I'm looking at this from a standpoint of, Can we afford it? Four years ago, we probably thought we could. Changes over yearly. I will close this debate with my colleagues and have the great Ms. Helzberg come up and speak to us. She would like to comment on the lid. Thank you for joining us, Shirley.

Thank you. Mayor Lucas? Pull that down just a little more. Is that better? Oh, great. I will say, being in this building, I haven't been here for a while. The acoustics are terrible.

Agreed.

As you all know. So if we could ever come up with more money, figure out how to make all that you're saying is so important. And I just want you to know that I think all the remarks here have been really, truly what needs to be said. I think the positive and the questions about funding, how do you prioritize, what do you do? I have to say, our company, which is now a Berkshire Hathaway company, but we're still involved in ways, has funded this community at whatever level we could in many, many areas, but the downtown has always been primary. I still call it downtown, remembering Harz Fells and all the great things that I shopped as a child. But I think this project, we've been owning and renovating properties in the Crossroads for nearly 30 years. Our corporate office was here for many, many years. And as I started doing things on the crossroads, other owners would say, how do you lease yours? And I said, because we care about the streetscape. We've done things to enhance the exterior, which makes people have a sense of pride. We just renovated a little project at 18th and Baltimore. We built a little public park. We do try to lock it at midnight because of homelessness. Because that was one of the things that our people who were leasing, there's no place. So we built a little corner. We took parking out to build a public park. That's how strongly we believe in this. And I think we know from other cities, I did go with the group to Dallas and you can stand on the street and hear all the noise and you step into the park and all that noise is gone. And I think you talked about Cordish, you talked about the things that are being innovated again from the state, the funding that's been appropriated again, there will be tremendous But people care. They want to step out on their deck, their balcony. The 670 has always separated everything. This is a way of combining. The growth will just continue. The expansion, and I wish my husband could be here today, but he's at a hemp meeting, helping entrepreneurs be more successful.

Thank you, Shirley. I'm sorry, but thank you so much for speaking.

I was just going to say thank you, Mrs. Helzberg. Two of my sons go to UA, so thank you so much for your contribution to the community.

So my only suggestion would be that we pass this out as with no Yeah, my recommendation is to pass it out with no, what do you call it? Pass it out with an advance and no recommendation. Advance and no recommendation, and then I think you'd get a full vote.

Okay, that's the committee substitute?

Committee substitute.

That's the one just with the one pass-through?

I think it's just the first one, right? Because you went through yours. Okay. Okay.

All right, Mr. Chair, I've moved. Councilman Robinson, if I may, please.

Oh, I did want to make one more comment. We did get letters of support. We got 14 in favor of the project and one against.

Do we have any online?

Is there online? Somebody wants to speak? Do we have any online testimony? You don't see any? Yes, there's one, Bill Beatrich. Who's he? Yeah.

Are there others for public testimony that's in the audience?

We only have one sign up.

Oh, thank you so much. I'm sorry. Good morning, Chairman O'Neill and committee members. Bill Dietrich, President and CEO of Downtown Council Kansas City. And we've been honored to serve as your nonprofit partner for this project, the Santa Gloria Blount Luminary Park. Beginning in 2022, Kansas City has demonstrated decisive leadership in transitioning this project from a visionary concept into a shovel-ready infrastructure project. City leadership efficiently led the onboarding of an excellent project management team, a design team, and a construction management and general contractor. Today, we stand ready to advance phase one of construction and secure that $28.6 million in federal earmark funds. This continued support underscores the city's commitment to bridging the downtown divide, Shirley mentioned, and modernizing critical infrastructure along I-67 corridor. We're not only building over an acre of green space, safe, free to the public, programmed and accessible to all. These parks average in Dallas and in Omaha between 500 and a million visitors a year, a huge asset to the convention center. In phase one, we're modernizing essential infrastructure that supports our city and including construction of the kind of vital tunnel systems. I want to mention one thing. In 2023, the team did conduct an independent economic impact study. which demonstrates a strong economic ROI for the project we're happy to provide to the community council. Property valuations in Dallas increased dramatically, and this type of project sparked over $5 billion of new investment throughout the community around the park. So they have a real strong ROI. Our team has led the efforts to secure the federal state funding of over 100 million and 40 million from the civic and philanthropic community. We're confident over the construction period phase one with your support and leadership, we can raise the balance for phase two and privately match the city's level of financial commitment. By voting yes on this ordinance, you are not just funding a park, you are protecting millions in federal and state and philanthropic commitments that we've been able to bring to our community and deliver essential infrastructure and a great start to an amazing park that will serve all of our citizens, be free and accessible to everyone.

Thank you, Bill.

So thank you for your time and thank you for your support.

Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. With that said, I would entertain any other public comments. You don't have to, Jerry. Anybody.

That's former Fourth District Councilman Jerry Riffle.

You will show respect. I'm Jerry Riffle. I'm with Lathrop GPM 2345 Grand Kansas City. And I just wanted to point out how much I enjoyed my debate with the chair yesterday. at lunch it's friendly bantered there yeah it was a tremendous experience i think i think there are a couple of things here we need to talk about a little bit and i'll be short but first of all this is an mdfb project missouri development finance board mdfb is the closest thing we have to star bonds Everything from the Linwood YMCA to Union Station wouldn't be here. And MDFB, except for the city, probably played the biggest part in the resurgence of Kansas City in and out of downtown and throughout the city. And I think phasing the project mitigates the risk greatly. We can test how this works. H&R Block has committed $1.5 million for operations only in the first two years. It's a one block park. It's well developed. It can be coordinated with Barney Alice Plaza, and a future council can look at how well that works. before proceeding. In the meanwhile, we've got safety improvements for the Convention Center. We've kept our reputation. We haven't had the first failed Missouri Development Finance Board related project, which is what this would be. We have kept our reputation with the state legislature, and I I understand we have other needs, but I do believe this has very little risk, considering where the block's located by Lowe's, by Blue Cross. And I think it's a tremendous opportunity, and I think the committee should consider that. And so should the chair, and thank you.

All right. Mr. Talbot.

Thank you, Mike Talboy, the Greater Kansas City Building Construction Trades Council. Obviously, this is a ton of construction jobs in the region, and to the point about the renaissance of Kansas City and some of the big projects that are going on, this is just one more. The idea of the labor harmony agreement was was also mentioned a couple times and I think as we are looking at these projects and as we are looking at being good stewards of taxpayer dollars and making sure that That you're using local labor. It's on time head of budget all those different things the labor harmony agreements really do had a level of certainty to all of that and so I would urge that we If we're moving forward with this project, we significantly look at how we can implement a labor harm agreement moving forward. But again, this is a lot of jobs for your folks in the community on the construction side. Thank you. Thank you.

I will say I heard yesterday or today that 72% of the people in the United States now favor unions, which 11 years ago was under 50%.

You can and will make a difference in this life. That's right.

I would like a motion.

Okay. Mr. Chair.

Excuse me. Councilwoman Robinson. Sorry to interrupt. Just want to confirm that the motion is inclusive of your request to amend the committee sub with language with respect to programming? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I move that committee substitute for ordinance number 260718 be reported out of committee with recommendation of advance without a recommendation.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? Ordinance passes. Thank you guys very much. We do have a few more issues here.

Reducing the appropriation in the amount of $3 million in the General Obligation Series 2026 bond fund from Northeast 112th Street North Stark to City Limit Project, appropriating $3 million from the unappropriated fund balance in the General Obligation Series 2026 bond. What was that? Just the microphone. 2026 Bond Fund in Northeast Shoal Creek Parkway. Improvements. Maple Woods Parkway to Staley Road. Projects that count in recognizing this ordinance as having an accelerated effective date.

I'll just say... This is Nathan and I, the first district councilman, agreed that we're going to take a percentage of the monies we had over on Schult Creek and move it over here because it has more need over there and we weren't going to be able to do stuff. But I will go ahead, Jeff.

Yeah, go ahead Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Jeff Martin, Interim Director of Public Works, Assistancy Manager of Infrastructure. So this ordinance for you today moves money that was originally slated in the Geobond funds for Northeast 112th, North Stark, the City Limits Improvement Project, and reallocates $3 million of those funds from that project to the Northeast Shoal Creek Parkway Improvements Project, which is from Maple Woods Parkway. Over to Staley Road. So this is generally in the area that crosses over in front of the the high school at that area and does Improvements to that to the intersection that's currently exceed this picture Here's an offset intersection as well as improvements to the the southern side, which is Currently unimproved section of roadway and extending that on over to the intersection further to the to the east so FUNDS WERE SUBMITTED OR MOVED TO THIS ORDINANCE FOR IN-DISTRICT PIAC FUNDS ABOUT A MONTH AGO NOW, MAYBE A LITTLE LESS, AND SO THIS WILL CONTINUE THE FUNDING ALLOCATION TOWARDS THIS PROJECT.

YES, COUNCILMAN. EXCUSE ME. IS IT ALL FIRST DISTRICT PIAC FUNDS? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.

Okay.

Any public testimony? No.

Okay. We do have a quorum. No public testimony. No public testimony.

Mr. Chair, I move that ordinance number 260747 be reported out to the committee with recommendation of advance and do pass.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ordinance passes. Thank you. Thank you.

We got three. 260749, appropriating $130,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the shared success fund, 2590 for the purpose of performing a feasibility study for a youth sports facility within the city and recognizing this ordinance as having an accelerated effect today.

Okay. Any questions? You want to give us a brief overview of it?

Huh?

You want to give us a brief overview?

Yeah, so the parks department and the city manager's office has identified three locations for potential youth sports complex. So this is hiring an architect to see if any of them are feasible.

Where are the locations?

Cruise Park, Blue Valley Athletic Fields, and another one that I'm blanking on.

Sorry. Blue Valley, is that over there by 18th and in front?

Yes, 23rd Street.

I just want to show you I knew that.

That seems the most feasible because it's the largest, but it hasn't been used in a long time, so we need to see the condition of the infrastructure and all of that.

Gotcha. Awesome. That's where Powell is, isn't it? No.

No, Powell is on White Avenue, which is kind of on the other side.

Just stop while you're ahead. I got it. I knew what that was. 16th Street. Okay, go ahead.

All right. Any other questions for my colleagues? If not, I would entertain a motion. No public testimony. Oh, public testimony.

No public testimony.

Mr. Chair, I move that ordinance number 260749 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance and do pass.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Ordinance passes. Next ordinance.

ORDINANCE 260750, APPROPRIATING $100,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE SHARED SUCCESS FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING A DESIGN STUDY FOR POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF THE GEM THEATER AND RECOGNIZING THIS ORDINANCE AS HAVING AN ACCELERATED EFFECTIVE DATE.

I would ask the Councilwoman to maybe give us another brief overview.

Yes, this is a similar, thank you Mr. Chair, this is a similar project as the one before that I just explained. So we are considering expanding the gym theater by about 500 seats and preparing the space for food and beverage so that we can recruit comedy shows, R&B shows, and other types of acts. to the area. It hasn't been renovated since the late 1990s, so it's coming up on its lifespan. We don't know if adding those seats is going to be feasible because we think that we're going to have to go up because you can't go out of your landlocked right there. And so it'll look at plumbing, electrical, you know, how many more bathrooms do we need? Commercial kitchen space, things of that nature. And we are using an architect that we already retain.

Yes.

Is the American Jazz Museum, are they involved in this at all?

Not yet. They will be.

Okay, yeah. I want to make sure that since they're the ones who actually operate the gym theater, we want to make sure that they're included in the renovations.

Just a quick question. On the Jazz Museum and the Baseball Museum, What is the plan for the museum when the baseball moves? Does anybody have any idea?

Unless you know, Councilwoman, I don't think we've gotten that far in terms of repurposing. The Jazz Museum could expand into the space. We could repurpose the space altogether, but we haven't gotten that far.

Yeah, I think American Jazz Museum is wanting to expand their collections. They have a tremendous amount of jazz artifacts that need to be restored that's in their cellar that they could quite easily use up the space. Um, Councilman Duncan.

Oh, sorry. I was just curious on how the Wu Tang Clan is going to be involved in this.

Yes. We'll be tomorrow night at another location. Boom Theater, 10 p.m. If you want to come by.

I don't think we like these private shows.

You don't know who the Wu Tang Clan is, Kevin?

I've heard of them. I'm just not sure how they work.

How they work.

How they work. Okay. Play music. Whatever they do. All right.

I just had one last question about this one. The... The study that the American Jazz Museum has done, did it include the gym theater at all?

Not to my knowledge, no. So we will need to decide how we want to go about that with a more modern space that are attracting acts like India Irie or Bilal. What kind of capacity do we need in an operator? So I think we need to kind of cross that bridge when we get to it. if these renovations are even feasible. So we're just trying to see if they're feasible at all and if there's a market for it.

Okay. Just with the design, have we already selected a company?

We just used a company that we already retained and followed the regular procurement process, but we didn't have any appropriations to pay them.

Okay. And so I just would like, and maybe there's a friendly committee substitute that we can talk about before Thursday. But to make sure that we're reviewing the study that we've already done, if the gym theater is contemplated in that. I don't know if it's contemplated at all. And then secondarily that we cement the American Jazz Museum's role in this because they are the ones who primarily use the space so that they would know what people are asking for that we maybe don't have. So in addition to The expansion of the seats, some of the things that I've heard is the green room and the staging and the lights. I mean, there's a lot that needs to be redone, and I just want to make sure that we're tracking the folks. We're working with the folks who have had the closest proximity to the facility.

So I think, point well taken, I welcome the friendly, you know, the study is going to be comprehensive and it's going to look at comparably sized venues in the United States. And so it won't be, you know, kind of guesstimating what we need. We will get a report back that puts us really in a state of the art opportunity. So the different technology, enhancement that needs to be made. I mean, it's going to be completely comprehensive. Okay. Yeah.

Thank you. Mayor's starting to give me that Andrew look like we've taken too long.

Yeah, he's well made a 10 minute speech.

Any public testimony entertain a motion?

Mr. Chair, I move.

I apologize for interrupting again, just to confirm the discussion. Yeah, I'll work with the council.

I'm sorry. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I move that ordinance number 260750 be reported out of committee with a recommendation of advance and do pass.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? The ordinance passes. Last one.

Committee Sub 260602, authorizing the Manager of Procurement Services to exceed a $1 million contract threshold on an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for environmental services for Tetra Tech for the funds previously appropriated.

Thank you guys for sitting around for two and a half hours waiting for your ordinance. Go ahead.

Good morning. Keely Golden, Assistant Chief Procurement Officer of the General Services Department. I also have Deputy Director Andy Savastino of the Neighborhood Services Department with me. This ordinance authorizes the Manager of Procurement Services to exceed the $1 million threshold on EV 2924-10 Environmental Services with Tetra Tech Incorporated and allows future renewals without council approval. The historical three-year spend is $319,044.34. The current estimated spend is $350,000 for annual remediation work. There is a 13-week project for housing for the Washington Wheatley remediation in the amount of $1,609,623.42 that is pending, causing the increase to this year's annual spend. I will now turn the presentation over to Andy cover more information on the scope requirements of the annual contract.

Yeah, so the environmental service contract is one of our tools in the tool chest about how we do environmental services through city facilities and city projects. So the environmental services contract covers many different things. The phase one environmental site assessments, the remediation work, hazardous waste, all those kinds of services. So this particular project that we're referencing is going to be through this particular contract.

We're happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from my colleagues?

Yes, Ms. Keeley, thank you, and Mr. Savastino. Say again, why would we approve something that would allow additional renewals without any council approval or oversight?

So many of the procurement services contracts that we have... processed within the last year or two have come to you without council approval. So as we're bringing additional contracts back to you now, we're removing that additional council approval and they have been approved. So it's at your discretion if you approve that. but we're starting to remove that now.

Okay, so we are not aware of that. We were not told.

So we have some that have that in them, and we have some that don't.

I'm shorting this conversation. We don't like to give non-approval. So please.

Is this an AR that has gone out?

No. We have some ordinances that do, and we have some ordinances that don't.

I mean, our policy has been in the last three years that we renew those every year.

So you would like to see that back in there?

We would like to see that renewed every year. So if you could change that, amend that to say with city council approval every year.

No problem. The other thing that we're going to have to be more diligent about with these contracts are inclusion. So can you talk about any subcontracts that are a part of this million-dollar span with Tetra Tech?

So this does have MWBE goals on it.

Not goals. No, no, no, no.

Yes, I know there's new wording. We're not used to that yet.

Okay, so tell us. You're going to have to tell us what other subcontractors.

I do not have that information with me today, but we can provide that to you.

before Thursday yes we can provide that to you I do not have that with me today well and we really shouldn't be advancing ordinances that we don't have the information for business inclusion is it on the it is attached to the actual ordinance okay but I don't have that as part of the presentation okay that's something we're also accustomed to yeah

We were asked previously not to include that in our presentations. That was a while ago. We were asked not to include that in our presentations.

We have a new program in place right now. And so that information we do want to know, but it's not a minority and women-owned business goals, but there is contract inclusion. So if it's connected, I'll just read it. If it's already on the ordinance, is it?

I'm not sure if it's on the ordinance since this was just the renewal.

But what we will provide is this isn't a renewal to the contract. The only thing on this was just exceeding $1,000,000. This isn't a contract renewal. This was just an authorization to exceed a million dollars on the contract. This isn't actually a contract renewal.

So if you could please send us the contract inclusion components, that would be great. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. No problem.

Does it not say execute a one-year contract renewal? This is not to execute a one-year contract. There's a committee sub. Correct. Yes.

There should be a committee substitute.

I'm looking at the presentation. Yes. Okay.

Okay. Any public testimony? Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure that what is being advanced today is what you need to actually engage Tetra Tech.

Yes. What we're asking for today is to exceed a million dollars on the current contract so that the 13-week project for Washington Wheatley remediation can be executed against the current contract.

Colleagues, I just want to impress upon you that this has been a ride trying to get this together so that we can actually start cleaning up parcels on vacant lots. We've had the money in place for many, many months, many months. And so actually tracking down what is the process so that the work can begin has not been enjoyable. And so I want to make certain that this ordinance effectuates construction to begin. Because once it starts, it's going to be continuous over and over, just with cleaning up the vacant parcels. And so that's why I want to be sure what we do today puts us in a position to actually begin working. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

I believe you've heard the demand. Is that going to occur? This authorizes that work to begin.

Exceeding $1 million would allow the Washington Wheatley remediation.

Do we know what the exceeding cost will be?

The $1.6 million for the Washington Wheatley remediation.

Okay, so the $600,000 is the extra over the million.

So they spend... The current contract averages $350,000. So allowing us to exceed a million dollars will allow the Washington Wheatley project to continue.

And those funding sources exist. They're not just poof out of anywhere. So some of it is EPA funding. Some of it is CDBG. So it just allows us to utilize those funds with this company so that the work can just stay continuous.

Yes, we verified with housing this morning with their fiscal officer that they have the funding set aside already. Yes.

And I just, you know, thank you for your leadership on this. I definitely want to move forward with advancing. But when we do these contracts and we're extending the amounts, we do need to be looking at their subcontractors. to make sure that that business inclusion is addressed. So you can send that to us. And with that, Mr. Chair, if you're ready for a motion.

There's a committee substitute. Yeah, I just, I totally agree with the whole, where we've moved into this further council approval for every year, but this is 1.6 total, correct? Not annual.

So we are asked to exceed a million dollars annually on this contract moving forward. But this year.

Okay. I just wanted to admit, it seemed like this, we've had projects that were a certain amount over the course of multiple years. This sounds a little different than that. Okay.

So next year we may not exceed a million dollars, but if we do, that would be authorized under this contract.

Gotcha. Okay. Yes. Okay. Appreciate it.

Council approval.

I would accept a motion. So that does include further council approvals just to ensure that that's included.

This does not authorize any renewals of the contract. It simply authorizes staff to exceed the contract threshold. This year. Under code. This year. For one year only. Correct. That's not how it's written. The contract, as I understand, requires returning to council for renewal. Yearly. Yearly, correct. Okay, wonderful.

Mr. Chair, I move that committee substitute for ordinance number 260602 be reported out of committee with a recommendation of advance and due pass.

All those in favor. We do have a 20 minute presentation. Thank you.