Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFQ AP15-203 and award a contract to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., of Fort Worth, TX, to provide a comprehensive Feasibility Study for a Federal Inspection Service Facility at the Long Beach Airport, in an amount not to exceed $349,845, for a period of one year; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; and Increase appropriations in the Airport Fund (EF 320) in the Airport Department (AP) by $349,845. (District 5)
Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Next up, can we get the next item, please? I believe. Item number 717. Report from Long Beach Airport recommendation to award a contract to Jacobs Engineering Group to provide a comprehensive feasibility study for a Federal Inspection Service facility at the Long Beach Airport in an amount not to exceed $349,000. District five. Mr. WEST. Mr. Mayor. Council members, this has been before the Council a. Couple of times for tonight's meeting. Our executive director of the airport, Bryant Francis, is going to talk about awarding this contract for the study. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, members of council. On July 7th, 2015, City Council authorized the city manager to proceed with the project to conduct a feasibility study regarding the potential development of the Federal Inspection Services Facility at Long Beach Airport. The airport immediately began working with purchasing department to prepare a request for qualifications for RFQ on August 28th in RFQ was issued by the city's purchasing department. Next, a pre statement of qualifications meeting was held in early September with potential proposers. On September 23rd, the deadline to submit statements of qualification. Three proposers officially stated interest after internal review. All proposers were deemed qualified and were notified by purchasing of the opportunity to present to an evaluation committee consisting of airport and purchasing staff on October 12th. Of the three presentations, the evaluation committee believed Jacobs to be the strongest and best suited for this project. Therefore, in late October, Jacobs Engineering was requested to submit a scope of services as well as a cost proposal, both of which were received several weeks later. After reaching a successful agreement on scope and fees with the airport purchasing, posted the notice of intent to award to Jacobs Engineering Group on December 14th. This began a ten day protest period of which none were received. Jacobs Engineering is one of the industry's leading providers of global comprehensive aviation services. They propose to use in-house consultants and a short list of subcontract consultants to conduct the study. The components of the study will include airport market analysis, airport scope and capability, financial feasibility, economic impact, assessment of environmental impact and security risk assessment. The City Attorney's Office will conduct a risk assessment of the potential threats to the airport noise control ordinance and a plan to mitigate impact at neighborhoods and schools from environmental and health impacts. Should the airport noise control ordinance become invalidated? Please note that this component will not be covered by Jacobs sports consultants. I felt it important to mention, however, as it was a direct counsel request to have this component included as part of the overall study. And it will be covered. An additional counter request was to hold community meetings. We will work with Council District offices to schedule those meetings that would like to convene a meeting for the airports east side or districts four and five and another for the airport's west side or for District seven and eight. These meetings will be to formally introduced the feasibility study team, review the components of the work which will be conducted, and to answer questions and which in the meetings to be in an open house format and that they will be held very close together in date, helping to keep costs in line as members from each firm will be represented and many will be traveling from outside of the area. Based upon the timeline submitted by Jacobs. And barring any delays, the findings of the feasibility study will be finalized in July 2016. Staff will return to city council with members of the Jacobs team to present those findings soon thereafter, likely in August. Tonight, Mr. Ron Siki of Jacobs Engineering is here and is available to address the Council should you have any direct questions for him? This concludes my report and we are happy to take questions at this time. There is a motion in a second, but Councilman Mongo and Councilman Price. Did you have it? Do you have it? Do you wanna go to the public? Councilman. Okay, any. Any members of the public want to speak on this? This is a contact. Adam, please come forward. Very good to see you guys. I'm just curious what to make sure that when we've had these community meetings, have we reached out to the four year olds, the five year olds, the seven year olds, the pictures of the people that were here last week and here today? I think we should get their viewpoint, even though they're, you know. In most cases do not are not 18 and don't have the cognitive skills that as you hopefully advance in age, you do get to forget. And I recognize there's a good intent. But let's make sure that. When we get input, we get it from mines that are fully developed. All right. Thank you. And I recognize oftentimes some of the decisions you make do not suggest that they're made by developed mines. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Laura Silver. My address is on file. I'm a resident of Long Beach. I am opposed. To the scope. Of the International Airport. Expansion Feasibility study. I'm not opposed to the study. But as it stands before you, it has. Frightening implications. Because staff. Has bundled with project. Design and last. Year Council voted in. July to proceed with a fact finding and. Fact. Facing a research project. You stated fact. Based decision making is how you want it to proceed, and I applaud you for that. And I just urge you with. I know many. Of you have graduate. Studies to. Refer to your background in research design and the principles of research design are that you look for the facts and then the facts inform you whether to proceed or not. One of the facts. Are, well, some. Information I have here is this is from city. Prosecutor Doug Halbert on to. 2015 in February. We're just a casualty of another airline wants into the airport and all slots are allocated. So to answer the question, which is a great question. The crisis will. Come when someone sees an opportunity here in. Long Beach so that the type of opportunity will dictate who challenges us and in what form. If a judge simply wipes out the entire ordinance, Long Beach would have no local control. No direct control, even though we own. The. Airport. Aviation landings all handled by the federal government. The fact that we have a curfew and night, you can't fly over the lateral runways. 25 are so bad now that Councilman Mongo is your area that's protected with the ordinance. Without the ordinance. It's a frightening prospect. So going into an international. It's a very. Risky. For all of us, those of us who live in the airport impacted areas. We know that. We don't want that for you. And so I would urge you to look at the scope of this. Feasibility study. And don't go into a almost shovel ready design. Just see if you want to go with it. Or rather. So it's a matter of adjusting the scope of this. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Joe Sopel My address is online, Mr. Mayor. City Council Members and Staff. Council Members Mongeau Pryce, Gonzalez, Lowenthal, Andrews and Richardson. Have a choice. Instead of unwisely. Spending $349,000 on whether allowing Customs facility at Long Beach Airport might be. Feasible, they should make it. They should make a joint. Substitute motion that we hope council members, your Ranger Super Now and Austin would support. To first direct. A serious study, analyze and overdue discussion. To first decide whether to expose the. City to a new. And uncontrolled risk. To the only protection Long Beach currently has from locally unregulated flights. With no nighttime curfew in all runways. At all times. It is a fact. Not an opinion, that if a. Long Beach Council majority. Were to allow a customs facility desired by one tenant. Which is JetBlue. The city would be powerless to limit it to one carrier. The Council's approval of a customs. Facility would effectively incentivize provide the economic bait, enabling an entirely new class of countless international operators, passenger and cargo to seek flight slots that might be unavailable under Long Beach's protective ordinance. The minute all slots are filled, any one of that entirely new, large and powerful class of international operators would have an incentive. To potentially destroy Long Beach is protective airport ordinance. Mm hmm. If Long Beach airport management has. $349,000 to spare, I urge the Council to divert that some to be put aside as part of a permanent legal defense fund to continually. Protect our ordinance from those who could do us harm. Instead of inviting others to do so. I stood in front of you when we talked about an FBI study, and I thought 5 to $10000 was going to be a lot of money for this study. And now staff is asking for $349,000. If you vote yes on that tonight, you're effectively voting yes on international flights. Thank you. Next week, please. John Doe lottery address on file. Mayor. City Council. First, I'd just like to say a long. Line out there. I'd give some kudos to the strong start. There are probably good 20 of them that were. Hoping to get in here. And weren't able to. So. Are you guys going to have a long night? It'd be nice to be up here tonight to thank you for declining fees. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Instead, I ask why waste $385,000 before you even see if an office could put our noise ordinance at risk? All of you are on record stating that you are in support of the noise ordinance and don't want to put us at risk or it at risk. I would request that you pay an outside counsel like the one that defended us in 2001. Against. American Airlines. To even see if the noise ordinance is at risk. If we move forward with an office, why spend that 385,000? You know, as recently stated that the state of the city is strong. And I just put to you that we do not need an international airport to continue making this a strong city. We need more. Police. We need more fire. We need infrastructure. We don't need an office. That's not going to bring any money to our general fund. So, again, I would request that you if anything, let's look at the noise ordinance first. And if that's the case that it's not going to cause any issues, then move forward. Don't waste $395,000. Thank you. Makes bigger peace. Good evening. I'm Marshal. Dostoevsky. I live in Bixby Knolls. I oppose this. This international facility. And, you know, I just wanted to. Say that the one thing that this is going to do, this is only going to benefit JetBlue. I mean, JetBlue is in a kind of in a bad situation because they are competing with Southwest Airlines. Southwest Airlines goes to Mexico, goes to the Caribbean. JetBlue is based out of Long Beach. Doesn't have the the flights to go to. Doesn't have the right to go to Mexico because there's no international facility. And I think that paying $349,845, that JetBlue should pay this money. They should pay this because it only benefits them. I mean, is this. A city that just backs corporations or is this a. City that backs the residents and the people of Long Beach? And I know. That my. Home is affected by this, and many other people in my neighborhood are affected by this. So I would say that JetBlue should pay the money or we should that. That they're. The ones that benefit. So I wanted to thank you for allowing me to speak. Good evening. Thank you, sir. Next week, please. Good evening, Mayor and council members. You have not publicly discussed the Fresca study from 2013, which today is still relevant. I'm going to ask that you take that into serious consideration tonight. Now you're being asked to approve. The accurate number is $349,845 to provide you with additional information to make an intelligent decision on whether or not to approve the request for international flying. The only reason that this is back before you is because the cost has gone beyond the city manager's limits of $250,000. Each one of you have publicly stated that you support the coveted noise ordinance. You were simply asking for additional information to make a more educated decision. Yet this contract that you are asked to approve tonight includes the following services wording is directly from their websites. Jacob Engineering starting with aviation planning, site development and asset management to architecture and engineering design through to construction support, commissioning and long term facilities management. We are able to help our clients connect all of the critical, critical aspects of their facility to provide an excellent experience for their traveling customers. In the U.S., we have. Worked in more than 80 commercial airports, and in the past 15 years we have successfully delivered 12 major aviation programs totaling more than 15 billion. Lacoste Consulting, a boutique advocacy advisory shop offering strategic marketing network and capacity expertize for the aviation industry. This team is comprised of industry veterans from Large International as well as low cost characters. So the airlines are involved in this. Franka Fresca and Associates, a transportation and consulting firm, the firm that provided you the 2013 study that you have yet to discuss publicly. Fresca and Associates is dedicated to helping our airport clients establish best in class financial practices so that they can realize their goal of providing superior facilities and services to their customers. Somers, a top engineering firm that specializes in transportation segment Fonterra. They were involved in the 2001 airport expansion proposal. Applied Research Associates International Research and Engineering Company Lee Andrews Group, a full service public affairs and strategic planning firm that special specializes in public outreach and Jacobs and young construction cost consultants. Each one of these contractors has a history and vested interest in moving this project forward. This additional information study that you requested goes beyond the consideration to determine if this is a good, viable project that will benefit all of Olive Long Beach. We ask you once again tonight to consider all of the material you. Already have collected comments made by our. City prosecutor Doug Halbert, and the historical consequences related to the Long Beach challenges. Please receive and file this this request. Thank you very much. Speaker Please think this is our it looks like our final speaker on this item. Okay. Yes, sir. Yes. Hello, Robert. How you doing? City Council. My name is Steve Uptake. I'm a retired bisexual man living here in Long Beach. I've worked all my life. I do not have a criminal record. And I have requested over and over again that the city and the airport put in a noise monitor in the south by southwest part of the airport, which there is not a noise monitor. And you have a law or something about that. And you should put one there, because not only are you flying more of those little airplanes over my house and dropping fuel and oil on top of us that live there and the kids that live there, you're also flying big jets over my house that just started. I don't know. You didn't tell me about that one either. Now, let me change the subject. Okay. I'm actually going along with you here, guys. But you got to think big. You know what Hong Kong did? They got up off the coast over here like you did when you built the port. They built up an airport where you can have the biggest international airport you want. And that way it could be done where people aren't going to complain about it, like me. About airplanes falling out of. The sky on top of their heads or drop in oil or whatever the heck comes out of them. And then you could build yourself a big airport like Hong Kong. And I think some other country has built an airport off their coast also and have an international airport because there is a future if we don't blow ourselves up. And that way you could have your international airport. You know, you should think about things like that. And then you could have all that real estate over there to make another gazillion dollars on. I'm not against making money. It's about, you know, how you treat people. And the thing of it is, is that building up another airport off the coast is something you should consider. Yeah, it's going to take time and money, but that's that's life and, you know. So, in other words, I'm not against expansion, but trying to put an lax over in that hole where L.A., Long Beach is, it's, you know, lots of luck with that. You know, it's not a matter of if a plane is going to fall on Long Beach. It's a matter of when. And I sure as hell don't want to be under it. If you drop it in the ocean, that's a better chance of survival anyway. And so and that's my pitch, you know. In other words, put a noise monitor in the South by Southwest like you're supposed to so you can monitor the system and think about maybe putting that you could work with Orange County. They could probably between here in Long Beach, build up something off the coast, a real airport like Hong Kong, like it's already been done. It's not in science fiction, it's already been done. And that way you can have your international airport, you can make a gazillion dollars, have a future for the kids in the future and give these kids 15 bucks an hour. Okay. Thank you. So that closes public comment on I'm on another item. Councilman Mongo. I think studies are important. And I'm not saying that anyone here or at least I'm not committing to voting yes or no on the FISA. But I believe in what the very first woman said, which is a study is really important to know the viability. Airport Director Do you believe that this study has greater impact than to any one carrier? Would you elaborate on that? A Council on mango. We we do believe that in terms of the users of this facility, should it come to fruition at some point in the future, it would extend beyond a single carrier in JetBlue. It is true that JetBlue submitted a formal request to my attention at the end of February, which is what began this process that we are here to discuss this evening and consider. However, we do believe that there will be other beneficiaries at the airport in terms of others of of our tenant mix, including the general aviation community Gulfstream, which has a major completion center there on the West Coast operation for the completion of their aircraft. So we do believe that there will be other users beyond JetBlue for for that facility. I think it's interesting, you mentioned Gulfstream. They've increased employees by, I believe, 200 this year with all high paying jobs. Would you say that when this study comes back, should it not be beneficial to the city that this would potentially put the item of the international terminal as a know to rest forever? Or at least the imaginable long term future. Well, so I certainly wouldn't say forever, but. But what I would like to see is the results of the study. And and that, I think, will be very telling in terms of giving you the council the information that you need to make the informed decision as to whether to proceed with the project. There is nothing in this scope that will include design. They will look at potential sites for the fires to be located on. They would look at things in terms of potential scale, but there will be no design of a facility itself. We would come back to council with the full results of this study before any of those determinations would be made and those will be made by you. And Councilmember Austin did an excellent job about six months ago when we discussed this previously of ensuring the robust nature of the study. Have all items requested by Council Member Austin been included? Yes, they happen. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you. Well, when we voted on this before, my position was that data is good, it's always good. And I prefer to make decisions based on all of the data that we have, rather than speculation on many things that that come before us, especially things that happened in my district. So I don't see that this is going to be any different in terms of the process. Unlike one of the previous speakers, I had no illusion whatsoever that this study was going to cost five or $10,000. I mean, it costs more for us to study whether or not we should extend read curbing on a street by feet or two. So there was no to me, the cost of the study isn't shocking by any stretch of the imagination, given the scope of the study. So I'm not concerned about the financial commitment because I think much like many of the major studies that we do that impact policy decisions for the city. It's an important study and I want to make sure that it has a very broad scope so that everyone's interests are accounted for. So I'm going to be supporting this item. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I think my my position is pretty clear on this. It has been from the very beginning. I have some significant and serious reservations, and I voted against the study to begin with. I don't think I can be supportive of it again today. That said, I do have some some questions before I make my comments. And the first one is for the city attorney. Can you discuss how the components that are being conducted through your office, namely the risk assessment of the potential threats to noise ordinance and the plan to mitigate impact in neighborhoods in schools be conducted or incorporated into the feasibility study. How are you guys going to go about conducting this in-house? Do you plan on doing it with outside counsel? Councilman Austin Members of the City Council. Our current plan is. To. Review the draft of the report before it's made public. Work with the outside consultant if we need to do that to. Make a determination. As you know, our office is very. Familiar with the contents of the ordinance. We've been working with it even before it was adopted in. 1995, so we feel very comfortable with it. If we feel that we do need. Technical expertize from outside counsel, as one of the speakers indicated. We have used the law firm a great. Skill and balance in. The past for issues like this. They are also very familiar with the city of Long Beach Airport, the Long Beach Noise Compatibility Ordinance. And if necessary. We. Would probably hire them to provide additional assistance if we need it. But really, we're going to take a hard look at the report itself. Before we formulate an opinion. So I think Mr. Francis mentioned that the report will come back and he expected it back in July. That's correct. And so with the additions, I guess, do we plan on getting all this information back at once or will it come back? And based. On your previous. Direction, it's our understanding that we would present, in effect. A joint report. There would be a report by staff and the consultant, and our office would contribute to that by way of either a separate paper on the issue and. Of course oral presentation. As well. So we would do it at the same time. Okay. Thank you. That is helpful. Um, and Mr. Francis, in 2015, revenues at the airport were significantly down from the previous year, and I believe it was down more than $2 million from what was budgeted in that year. That is correct. Okay. And so the council's budget performance report last summer, the council was told that the airport fund revenues are directly impacted by the number of employments at the Lombard Airport. So that said, declining employment numbers over the past few years have been negatively impacted. And I think that was the negatively impacted revenues. I think that was one of your quotes. That's correct. I believe these revenue trends are continuing this year for the airport as well. Is that correct? Well, actually, our employment levels have stabilized, so but it doesn't really provide for recovery because we're not yet seeing an increase in passenger activity as we have in previous years. So so we will still see, we believe, revenues that are slightly off from what they were last year. There have been some adjustments in rates and charges for this year, and that certainly will compensate for for a good, good portion of what would have otherwise been declining revenues. So with the decline in revenues, do you. I think that $350,000 study is prudent. But the story. I believe that in terms of giving us the in-depth analysis from many angles that is warranted for a project of this magnitude, I do believe it's prudent. We have continued to report a surplus in terms of our overall budgeting. So we we still have an excess of revenues to expenses. But what we've been seeing is a decline in the overall revenue levels. So we still are reporting surpluses in our revenue stream. And I do believe that this will be a prudent project for us to move forward with in terms of the feasibility study itself. Okay. And so so I think we may just just disagree on that. I mean, I think, you know, when you lose your money. It's. Kind of difficult to to justify spending that type of money. But, um, I would prefer what similar sized cities have international airports. So just off the top of my head in California, Fresno is an airport in state that has an FAA. They have several flights to Mexico, various destinations in Mexico. Also Tucson, Arizona, Birmingham, Alabama. So just to name a few cities that are are about the same size of of Long Beach, but also have international facilities. And just this is just a question out of curiosity. I know it's a little off topic. I'm sorry, but do what type of commercial aircraft do they are able to use be use it at Long Beach Airport. Given our current current terminal constraints. So the the design aircraft, the largest aircraft that we would see on a routine basis would be of the 757 variety or Airbus 321, which is the roughly 180 to 200 passenger aircraft on. Under special circumstances, we could accommodate a very small widebody aircraft. But there really is no provision for that facility to handle large widebody aircraft, such as the Boeing 747 or Airbus three eighties, very large, you know, 4 to 500 passenger aircraft. Those cannot be be handled or accommodated at the existing facility. When I think international flight, I think big, big planes just that's just me. So I'll just have some quick remarks. As I said, when this issue came before the council last July, I strongly believe now and continue to believe that the quality of life of our residents is the paramount factor that should be determined as this council takes action. And I'm not prepared to expose our city or our neighborhoods to any significant risk when the economic reward to the city appears to be minimal or nonexistent. Opening the door to international flights creates a whole new potential risk, too, of a challenge to our very, very precious noise ordinance. And and as I read the newspaper, I look at cities across the the particularly in Burbank recently. They are trying to accomplish what we have in our noise ordinance and at least having a curfew. That's something that we also should be very mindful of. The former airport director memorial, Mel Rodriguez, in a memo in 2013 told the city council that future revenues from FISA would only serve to mitigate the cost of the facility and not further enhance the airport's financial position. And so, given the significant cost to even undertake this feasibility study when the airport is facing declining revenues, I believe is not financially responsible to continue down this path. The risk, I believe, outweigh the rewards. And I'll repeat that again. And so with that, I would like to make a substitute motion to receive and file this motion. Of. Thank you. Yeah. That would be me. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. And we have Councilmember Sue. I'm sorry, Councilmember Your Honor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just a few. Well, just one quick question. For me, it's very simple. Fresno, Birmingham and Tucson, you say, are international have international airports. Correct? Yes, sir, that's correct. How close in proximity are they to other airports that have a similar size or have or offer international flights? That's another state. Those three are probably about 100 miles away. I should have added that. Of course, Santa Ana Orange County Airport has the Federal Inspection Service facility as well. Okay. When it comes down to Long Beach. You know, I think that we're looking at. Adding international flights. We're talking about adding flights in proximity to Orange County, Los Angeles. Ontario, I think, has international flight, if I'm not mistaken. And yet, you know, here we are within, I would say, what, 50 miles of those cities, less with Orange County and L.A.. And yet we want to create a an international facility here. It just doesn't make sense to me. But also doesn't make sense is that when we're looking at the spending of $350,000, that can be used towards fixing sidewalks, cutting trees. Using staff for other purposes and security. We have a marijuana issue becoming a pretty soon. We're talking about how are we going to find that? Why? Here's $350. We could be use it for that. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me when we're looking at another study spending money in something that apparently is is is a a fait accompli based on how it's worded and what the expectations are going to be coming back to us. I said this many months ago when I offered. Let me rephrase it when I did not support this item back then, and I don't support it now. We don't need a feasibility study. We have a great airport. If any A-frame broke, don't fix it. If we need if revenue is an issue where we need to make more revenue, then let's talk about a business plan for what we have at the airport to increase revenue. You know, we're talking about the change of a business plan that goes from east to west or west to east , going north and south. But yet, when we talk about those, the business plan that goes east to west, west to east, we're cutting flights. We're not increasing flights. We're cutting flights. And that doesn't make any sense to me. In fact, I haven't seen any reports that would support cutting back flights. You know, I know that I can use more flights to D.C. directly from Long Beach being that, you know, I go there as is at least twice or three times a year sometimes. I know that we can use more flights to Sacramento, which would be fit in with a North-South flight plan. There's only one flight per day. And it's and it's in the middle of the morning. In the middle of the afternoon. Totally inconvenient. Thank you for for making meetings that I might have in Sacramento. So, I mean, it's instead of looking at creating an office, let's look at our airport in terms of creating more flight opportunities. So I'm not going to be supporting this issue, but I will support the receiver file. Thank you. Councilmember Superdome. Thank you. And Councilmember Mongeau referenced the first speaker, and that was Laura Selmer from the fourth District. What I'd like to do, I think you've answered this question, but I'd like to frame it the way Laura did, and that is why not adjust the scope of the study so it's less money. So if you could just address it in those terms, I appreciate it. Yes, sir. We worked very diligently with Jacobs to refine the scope to what you have before you today. As I mentioned, there are six areas, none of which are design. One is market analysis. The second is airport scoping and capability. The third is financial feasibility. The fourth is economic impact. The fifth is assessment of environmental impact, and last is security risk assessment. And as I mentioned, there is also the component that the city attorney's office will be covering. So this is to look at the feasibility, financial and otherwise of this type of project taking place at the airport. The previous study that was done in 2013 was only a financial feasibility study, just one of the six components that are going to be covered by Jacobs with this study. So this is certainly more robust, but it takes a more full look at what the project would look like. All of the components that need to be considered that the council would would, I believe, benefit from having the information to make that future decision. So again, the scope has been refined to the point that it is in today. And we believe that what we brought forward is fitting for the type of project that is before you. Okay. Thank you. And I'm going to confuse two issues here purposely, because I get asked this question almost daily. There is something different on the table than we had last July, and that is the additional flight slots. So if you would just indulge, just please. Approximately how many flights do we have on a daily basis right now? So today, with the 41 air carrier slots and 25 commuter slots, we have roughly 40 departures per day. Presently of of 66 possible today. Okay. So 40 of 66. So if you filled all those slots and added nine plus, what would your total number be? 75. Okay. So that's that's the threat today that that it wasn't in July when this first came before us. It's affirmative. So so there are there separate completely separate items. The one is due to the noise ordinance and the noise analysis that is conducted annually. That is what has resulted in the airport actually having room available in the air carrier budget for the last four years, which is what caused us to take the action that we presented to you in the study session on December 8th to increase the air carrier slots from 41 to 50. The in terms of the the slots, the 41 and 25 slots, the 25 commuter slots, quite frankly, there's not much demand for them. As of today, only three of those 25 slots are allocated. And it really is just a function of the way that airlines operate today and the limitations that are placed on aircraft in that category by weight. So there's just not very much demand for those 25 slots in the present industry the way that airlines operate today. I don't really foresee that we will have many of those slots all of a sudden have interest from carriers for allocation. So really, it's the air carrier category that we're concerned with. The 41 is growing to 50 through the process that we presented last month. Right. And thank you for that clarification. And I understand it. But my constituents impacted by the airport see it as a real threat. They see more flight slots and changing the business model of the airport and that all those slots could potentially be filled. So that that's I just wanted to get that on the record. That's what I'm hearing from my constituents. I'd like to thank my colleagues. Mr. Austin, thank you for asking all the questions that I had on my mind. He obviously knows this topic very well, and I appreciate it. Just one point of clarification for Roberta. Your comment on the money being used for other purposes, those moneys have to stay at the airport. We all understand that. But a waste of money is a waste of money, if that's what the speakers were saying here tonight. So they did it eloquently. I won't add to that. So I'd like to thank my colleagues for their words. I would like to thank the speakers for being here tonight. And I don't want to say I won't be supporting this because there's a substitute motion on the table here. So we'll wait to see what happens. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Council members, I. Do want to echo what Councilmember Supernova said earlier. We talked about the dollars. Potentially could go. To police, fire streets, Rosa. That's absolutely not the case. These are enterprise fund dollars that can only be spent on airport related issues. And I appreciate that. Councilmembers who were not. Kotsenburg give anything awesome. Look, vice me with them. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank Councilmember Supernova for clarifying how enterprise funds can be spent. So thank you for doing that. And I agree with you. While it is not allowed to spend any enterprise funds on general fund activities, if it were a waste of money, it's something that we should not support. I have always supported. Our ability to have access to knowledge and information and data. And I continue to support that. And I believe this is something that we must do and that we should do. I don't believe it's a fait accompli and not for me personally. And I don't come to this conversation with that in mind. And I appreciate the staff recommending the direction of the study and appreciate Councilmember Price's reminder that a simple study just in our neighborhoods costs tens of thousands of dollars. And so I had no expectations of this to cost anything less than what it does. And I'll be supporting that. And I ask my colleagues to vote no on the substitute motion. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. I want to thank staff and particularly I want to thank my colleague to the right, councilman austin. He's done a he and Councilmember U ranga and councilmember super nice have done a really good job at keeping this issue alive. I believe in a process. I believe that I'll make a decision ultimately in the end. But in all those scenarios, I need facts and I need data. So the truth is, I don't want to pick and choose my methodology on how I make decisions, make certain decisions without actually allowing the process to evolve. Hearing out here and everyone to make their case. So this is no different. I'm going to support the the main motion and I'll make an ultimate decision once I see the facts in front of me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. There is a substitute motion on the floor, which is a received file by Councilman Austin. And then depending on that, will go to the next motion, which was the original motion by Councilman Mongo, depending on the vote of the substitute. So all those in favor of the substitute motion, please cast your votes. Motion fails. Okay, now we have the main motion, which is to approve the recommendation to move forward as made by Councilman Mongo and Councilwoman Price. Members, please go and cast your vote. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. I know there might be a few folks outside that are trying to get in, so I'm going to take just a one minute to minute recess. So folks that need to go can go. And if there are folks that are trying to come in, the next item up is the minimum wage item. And so if there are folks in need to come in, let them try to find some seats. So just take a one or two minute recess and let the adjustment happen and let staff prepare for the presentation. So thank you. Okay. We're going to I'm going to call a meeting back to order here so I can just have everyone. Please take a seat. I'm going to go and call this meeting back to back to order. So if I can get Madam Clerk to do the roll call, and if I can, everyone else, please grab a seat.