Alderman Nrian.

Alderman Aldenberg, I'm sorry.

Here and just FYI change microphone is not on, I don't believe.

Mine.

Oh, I can hear you now.

Okay.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Present.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderwoman Schweitzer.

Present.

Alderwoman Cox and Twee.

Chair Cohn.

Present.

Five I five votes.

We have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The next item on our agenda is the approval of the meeting minutes.

Tuesday, December 16th.

I'll entertain a motion on meeting minutes.

I move we approve the meeting minutes from uh the date you referenced.

Can't hear you, Mr.

Oldenberg.

I don't think Mike is I move we approve the minutes from the last meeting.

It's been moved by the alderman from the second, second by the alderwoman from the eighth that we approve our meeting minutes from Tuesday, December 15th, 2025.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderwoman Schweitzer.

Alderwoman Cox and Twee.

Aye.

Chair Cone.

Five I votes.

Madam Clerk.

Next item on the agenda.

The only thing on our agenda for today is Board Bill 25, which previously passed out of committee unanimously.

There is a committee substitute that was set out last week for the committee to review.

There have been many conversations and a couple meetings regarding this.

For those of you uh tuning in, uh this is related to peer-to-peer ground transportation operators at Lambert International Airport.

Um the initial bill as it was originally introduced last year, um, was amending Title 18.

Um, as some of you on the committee may recall.

Um, there was uh two committee meetings that we had related to this that were very robust conversations.

Um we heard from you know various ground transportation operators, we heard from the airport.

Uh the airport folks had you know several concerns um predominantly related to at the time amending Title 18.

Umce it passed out of committee, the uh staff at the airport provided a floor substitute that was never introduced.

Um this committee substitute is largely based off of the floor substitute that was provided by the airport staff at that time.

Um there were uh you know also considerations made for the existing contract with uh two row, which was the ground transportation operator that was operating illegally at the airport for six years.

Um that contract was approved by the airport commission on August 7th of last year, uh was executed by the airport director on uh September 1st and started collecting revenue on October 1st related to that particular peer-to-peer ground transportation operator.

Um, I am bringing this forward uh because you know, we do need to update the ground transportation uh uh ordinance, and uh to take this into consideration, um, particularly since it's been acknowledged by the airport authority and staff that there is a new industry existing at the airport that they execute the contract in relation to.

Um, I have a couple amendments that I'll uh discuss later in the meeting that address some of the concerns, I believe, of uh the airport uh staff that were discussed in a meeting yesterday uh that included the mayor's office, the president's office, myself, and um other folks, but um I think that that's a general overview and summary of where things are today with Port Bill 25.

Um are there any questions from committee members at this time?

I know we have a couple of folks signed up to testify.

Okay.

Yes, Chairman Cohn, I can hear you.

Oh, thank you.

Second.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the first, seconded by the alderman from the second that we adopt the committee substitute for Board Bill 25.

Madam Clerk is walking back to her seat.

I'll let her get settled before calling the role.

If there's been a request for previous role, is there any objection to previous role?

Hearing and seeing none, uh, we have put the committee substitute for board bill twenty-five before us.

Thank you.

Any questions from the committee at this time before we get a testimony from the holding or thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just want to make a statement that really that that commends you, Mr.

Chairman, for having the patience uh over the last few months to work with the airport manager.

Um and quite frankly, bending over backwards in painstaking efforts to consume all of the edits that they had and concerns that they had into um you know this this board bill in the draft.

And furthermore, right, I I think you know, it's important we take a step forward that evens the plane for all vendors at the airport.

Um, particularly when the one in question uh we're making an amendment here, not for a single vendor, but we're making an amendment for um, or changes rather, to what what lies ahead and and ensuring that there's um consistency and fairness of all vendors for for any city operation, I think is is really important, particularly when some have been operating um outside of of local ordinance and city code as well.

So um I just want to thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and I appreciate you keeping the committee uh in the loop every step of the way with your conversations uh around uh this particular issue and with those uh at the airport.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh any other questions or comments before we get into public testimony.

All right.

Uh Madam Clerk, uh the airport staff is currently uh negotiating well, this involves that a third letter.

So I cannot this is all actually I'll turn this one off.

Uh so this was uh it's this is all stated in her letter, so I'll just go ahead and forward this to the clerk so it can be read into the record.

Uh that should be on its way to your inbox, Madam Clerk.

It is uh five pages, but it's double spaced, so it should go fairly quick, I would imagine that we're gonna be a good thing.

I have it.

Okay, will you please read the letter into the record, Madam Clerk?

St.

Louis Lambert International Airport and Ms.

Rhonda Ham, Newburgh Director, February 10th, 26th.

Dear Transportation and Commerce Committee members, I am sorry that I am unable to join you for this hearing to offer my comments in person.

Due to the late notice of this hearing, my staff and I are unable to make ourselves available to attend this hearing.

All executive members of airport staff and I had a prior commitment and are attending a critical negotiation meeting with our signatory airlines this morning.

However, I submit this letter as testimony to ensure you know that the airport is opposed to the committee substitute for Board Bill 25 for several reasons.

First and foremost, the airport is at a critical juncture in the negotiation of a new business deal for the city with the signatory airlines.

If the city has the support of the signatory airlines, the proposed business deal will fundamentally alter the way that the airport operates and authorize the construction of the long-awaited consolidated terminal program.

This will in turn also alter how permitees, concessionaries, and all other partners conduct business at the airport, both in the short and long term.

These negotiations are at a critical stage and a vital part of the negotiation is maintaining trust and consistency.

While this bill does not directly impact these airlines, it will certainly be perceived as a fundamental transformation of the board's oversight of the airport.

This longstanding process ensures additional opportunities for their input prior to the continuation of the pilot or the formalization of the regulatory scheme surrounding peer-to-peer operators.

However, passing Board Bill 25 at this point severely restricts the airport and its commission's opportunity to adjust based on experience and stakeholder input.

Committee substitute Board Bill 25 was based in part on an early draft of the current permit.

If this bill is passed, it will lock the airport and to regulatory scheme of the pilot program before the airport can fairly evaluate that pilot program.

I am also concerned about contradictions between this bill and the existing ordinance 69382 and fear that passage of this bill will result in unequal treatment of ground transportation operators.

This bill was drafted as a floor substitute intended to act as an emergency stopgap measure so that if the Board of Alderman chose to act, their actions could be enforced by the airport and would not violate any federal or contractual obligations.

However, after Board Bill 25 was placed on the informal calendar in July without using the floor substitute, the airport reached the compromise requested by this committee's chair and renegotiated the proposed permit to address the concerns of the board.

This bill remained on the informal calendar for seven months with no further communication or questions from the board on this matter.

We anticipated this would alleviate the need for this bill.

This past Wednesday, the airport was informed that this bill would be revived and discussed again by this committee.

After a brief review, the airport believes that this bill needs additional fine-tuning.

For instance, all ground transportation operators work are stage in areas designated by rule.

The airport sets the designated areas for each class of ground transportation operator in our rules and regulations, not in the ordinances.

This bill would define and restrict the designated area for one class of operator by ordinance with no allowance for alteration by rule.

This is inconsistent with the standard approach under the ground transportation policy, ordinance 69382 as amended by 71242, which allows designated areas for every other ground transportation operator to be established and modified by rule.

Additionally, there are some discrepancies between the hyper Pacific definitions contained in Board Bill 25 and the more generally defined terms in ordinance 69382.

Finally, as the airport seeks to modernize its facilities, it is also engaged in the effort to modernize its permitting progress and has several items actively under consideration for updating.

As part of this effort, the airport expects to present amendments to the ground transportation ordinance.

The airport requests the board permit.

The consolidated approach is a better use of the airport's compliance and oversight resources and avoids repeatedly diverting airport professionals from oversight of airport contractors and permittees in order to evaluate the impact of various legislative proposals.

Additionally, the airport industry and the industries associated with the operation of an airport, ground transportation concessions, equipment providers, handlers, etc., are undergoing rapid transformation.

The airport is trying to remain as close to the cutting edge of these changes as we can so that we can ensure that airport customers have access to the services they expect and that the revenue from those services to the airport is maximized.

This transformation in the industry is likely to require additional changes to this ordinance and potentially the other ordinance governing the airport.

I believe that taking a holistic rather than piecemeal approach to reform is more likely to meet with success for both the airport and its stakeholders.

I appreciate the committee's time.

And I am grateful for the opportunity to correspond with you on this issue, which I believe is very important.

I am opposed to this bill for the reasons laid out in this letter, and request that this committee not recommend the passage of Board Bill 25 in any form at this time.

If you have questions or concerns regarding airport operations, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Respectfully yours, Rhonda Ham Nebrook, Airport Director, City of St.

Louis.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I appreciate that.

I appreciate everyone's time as uh that was brought into the record.

Um, you know, before we get into public testimony, as I mentioned earlier, uh I do have three amendments uh that I emailed out to the committee earlier this morning um that will update the committee substitute and the whereas clauses um to uh attempt to address some of the uh airport directors' uh remarks that were just read.

Um but I think it's important to also reiterate some of the sequence of events that led us to where we are today.

Um, you know, there was a ground uh transportation peer-to-peer operator that had been operating at Lambert for many years with no contract with no revenue coming to the airport, that was in direct competition with other ground transportation providers that had agreements with the airport.

Um the last time that we had uh amended the ground transportation ordinances was back in 2020.

Um and uh substantively, you know, had amended some of these ordinances back in uh let me pull up my record here.

Um I believe it was uh 2006, 20 uh three, nineteen ninety-eight.

There had been several amendments to this uh ordinance previously that were uh reviewed um by the airport and others.

Um in terms of the ground transportation operations at the airport.

Uh uh my amendments will address this, but yes, it is traditionally um something that is promulgated by uh the airport, but specifically in the existing ordinance um that the airport director was referencing.

We do have in that ordinance language that says that designated areas are determined or could be determined by St.

Louis County ordinance, St.

Louis County ordinance uh can designate a designated area at the airport.

Uh the taxicab commission, uh it's a much broader term that they use in the ordinance itself, but essentially the taxicab commission by the city or by airport authority, which is the airport commission or the airport director.

Um so this is a uh a process or rule that is granted authority already to those entities to be able to promulgate these rules around designated areas.

Um, you know, and the conversation that we had yesterday, uh and I think it's important for some historical context.

Last year, when we were discussing this in committee, you know, there was a huge concern around uh revenue in particular, um, both you know, from the perspective that we weren't collecting it from this particular ground uh transportation peer-to-peer operation, but also the potential impact that you know any changes to the time to Title 18 or at the time to Title 18 were not changing Title 18 now with this committee substitute.

Um, but the concern was that you know any changes uh made by the Board of Alder Persons could, you know, have a chain effect that the airport uh airlines, you know, which we are a uh residual airport, meaning that the airlines do pay a significant, you know, uh portion of uh operations at the airport.

And so uh and certainly with the terminal consolidation project are you know very much engaged um and and very much you know supporting uh sponsoring, paying for uh a good portion of that consolidation project, uh that the airlines would have a particular issue with the Board of Aldermen taking action on this as it's traditionally, you know, done through recommendations of the airport staff.

Uh during conversations yesterday, the kind of goalposts moved, if you will.

Um, the you know uh language comments, feedback, you know, had kind of uh largely circulated around whether or not this committee has the ability to designate areas, which I think I just you know in my comments mentioned, you know, underneath the existing ordinance we do.

Um, and then uh also the you know potential concerns of a chain effect that the airlines have.

Uh and one of the you know newer pieces of information that came out of that conversation was that um, you know, we do update the ground transportation uh agreement ordinance, you know, somewhat regularly, periodically.

The last update to that was back in 2000, so um six years ago.

Uh, you know, and there was no definitive time frame that was provided in terms of when that will come before us, but I committed to the airport director that I am you know more than willing to work with her on any holistic changes to that ordinance as well.

Um, as some of you may be familiar, this is an ever-evolving industry right now.

Um, you know, actually uh Rob Solerano, who was on the call yesterday, also uh mentioned that ground transportation for a very long time was considered a quote unquote sleepy industry, um, that there weren't a lot of changes within the industry, but certainly within the last six years, there have been regular changes in the industry, whether that was um ride sharing, now you know, peer-to-peer uh rentals, and then uh more recently Waymo um has come on the scene.

So there's a lot of different you know uh uh technology and other um changes that are impacting the industry.

Um, and so there is going to be an updated uh holistic ordinance.

But in the meanwhile, since the airport authority and the airport director and staff have already acknowledged that this is an existing industry at the airport and there's no ordinance pertaining to it.

You know, I I think it's prudent that we move forward and uh uh put some regulations in place via ordinance.

So I'll get more into that a little bit as we talk about the uh various amendments, but at this time I'll entertain any you know uh testimony that uh is before us today.

Madam Clerk, is there anyone online that wants to testify?

We have a Mr.

Don Leffy.

I'm not sure if that's how to pronounce the last name.

This fave uh Chairman, President Green, members of the board, my name is Don LeFave.

Hello?

Yes, can you hear me?

Yeah, I can, but I need to make sure that you're sworn in for your testimony.

Would you mind raising your right hand if you're able to do so?

Thank you.

Do you uh promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth before the committee today?

I do.

Thank you.

You may proceed.

Thank you.

Chairman Kuhn, President Green, members of the board.

My name is Don Lefave.

I serve as the president of the American Car Rental Association.

On behalf of our members who operate at St.

Louis Lambert International Airport, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of Board Bill 25.

At its heart, Board Bill 25 is about basic fairness.

Peer-to-peer platforms like Turo provide a similar service and utilize the same taxpayer-funded infrastructure.

Therefore, they should operate under the same set of rules.

We believe that the same service equals the same rules.

If a vehicle is being rented at the airport, the same safety insurance and fee structures should apply, regardless of the platform used to book it.

Same access to customers.

One company or segment of the industry should not have preferred walkable access to customers, particularly if that opportunity was not extended to other operators.

And protecting city revenue.

Ensuring uh peer-to-peer platforms pay their fair share of concession fees protects the airport's revenue stream and ensures that one segment of the industry isn't unfairly subsidizing the other.

So, why is this legislation needed now?

While the airport did issue a permit to Tura this past September, with the terms identical to what the car rental operators pay at the airport and no special preferred access uh to the terminal garages.

It's important to note the timing.

That action on the terms occurred only after the committee signaled its intent to lead on this issue through Board Bill 25.

Well, the current permit is a step in the right direction.

Permits are administrative and can be changed or rescinded at any time.

Board bill 25 provides the necessary legislative floor.

It enshrines these standards into law, ensuring that fairness is not subject to administrative whim.

All current and future market entrants know exactly what the rules of the road are.

And St.

Louis remains a competitive, transparent market for transportation services.

In closing, we aren't asking for special treatment.

We're simply asking to maintain and enshrine a level a level playing field into law where competition can thrive.

I urge the committee to give board bill 25 to pass recommendation.

Thank you for your time and leadership on this issue.

Does anyone have any questions of Mr.

LaFay?

Seeing none, uh, thank you for your testimony this morning.

Madam Clerk, is there anyone else online that has signed up to testify?

Yes.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, is there anyone else online that signed up to testify?

No, we have no one else.

Okay.

No one else.

Uh we'll go ahead and take testimony from those in the hearing room.

Madam Clerk, do you have the names of the folks that have signed up to testify?

No, we just had one that possibly wanted to speak.

You'll let me know in the moment he said.

I thought I saw someone sign in earlier.

That was that wasn't right.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Uh so no further testimony uh on this board bill at this time.

Um I will uh go ahead and uh start a discussion on the amendments to board bill 25.

Well, I guess we should actually uh no, we'll go ahead.

We've already adopted board bill 25 of the committee substitute.

Um, so we'll go ahead and discuss the amendments uh that were emailed out earlier today.

There uh Darius, were you able to email the amendment out?

Okay.

Uh so the the amendment or amendments that you know I'd like to make for uh the board bill this or the committee substitute this morning.

Um I emailed out to the um uh committee members as well.

The first amendment uh or first part of the amendment is and all three of these are just inserting language into the whereas clauses.

It's not substantively changing the context or text of the bill itself, um, or you know, the existing ordinance, you know, it's just updating all three of these are just where as clauses to provide some contextual flavor, if you will, in an attempt to address some of the concerns that were outlined in the airport director's letter to this committee.

Um, the first uh is uh whereas ordinance 69382 as amended by ordinance 712 expressly states that designated areas are defined as area quote as areas of airport roadways and parking areas designated by St.

Louis County ordinance by the governmental agency authorized to issue taxicab licenses for the jurisdiction where the airport is by the city, which would be this board of aldermen, uh, or by the airport authority or by the airport director for specified uses by specified ground transportation operators or classes of ground transportation operator.

So, you know, with this language, adding it into the whereas clause is uh, you know, is an attempt to one establish that this body does have the authority underneath the existing ordinance to have this discussion and to promulgate this particular rule as you know, uh specified as the designated areas, which the airport director and her letter said that we do not have that authority.

Um, I think that this directly, you know, addresses that um establishes that it is clear in the existing ordinance that we do have that authority.

Um St.

Louis County even has that authority that can establish a designated area uh at the airport.

Um the second moving on.

Well, I should are there any questions on that first uh part of the amendment or any comments.

Alderman Schweitzer.

Thank you, Alderman Chairman Cohn uh for that.

Um, one of the issues with some of these peer-to-peer rental uh cut sharing companies is the designated areas aren't the same as the other uh rental car areas.

This is just whereas clause specifies that the city can designate an area, but it doesn't talk about where that area is.

Is that somewhere else in the bill, or is that just part of the permit?

No, that that's already addressed in the committee substitute, Alderwoman.

Um, but this whereas clause um is trying to address uh the airport director's concerns.

That's the right.

Right.

Yeah, but the the designated areas are defined in the committee substitute itself for the peer-to-peer ground transportation operators.

Okay.

Thank you for the question of clarification.

Do you have any other comments or or questions?

No, thank you.

I I do appreciate the um I see the definition talking about what lots are available.

Um as well.

I know that was something that we discussed at length during the previous committee meeting.

So thank you.

Correct.

Thank you, Alderwoman.

Uh Alder Woman Coxy and Twee.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, I just wanted to make a comment and state I find this to be very helpful clarification in terms of the authority.

I know that was something that uh the airport director uh expressly questioned in her letter, and I think this context is maybe helpful for members of the public and those that may be watching and following this legislation to understand that we are not uh creating or trying to assert any new authority.

This is already pre-existing authority that the city has.

Um and I also think this maybe should address some of the expressed concern about uh the airline operators having concern with this action taking place at this time.

Again, we're not exerting any new authority of the right of the city to designate these areas as they are not affecting inside airport operations but outside ground operations.

So I find the amendment very helpful.

Thank you, Alderwoman.

Any further questions or comments on this particular part of the amendment?

I'll move on to the second part.

So the second whereas clause that I'd like to add um, again, just for additional context and an attempt to address some of the concerns that have been brought forward.

Um, and it reads whereas the airport director and airport authority periodically review ground transportation industry surveys and recommend updates to the ordinance or ordinances about grand trans ground transportation operators.

This last occurred in 2020.

It is recognized by this committee.

I'm sorting some language there, uh, but recognize that a holistic ground transportation ordinance is needed, um, but it hasn't been drafted to acknowledge and incorporate updates within the industry as and is expected to be produced within the next two years.

This uh, you know, particular part of the amendment uh is one uh again trying to assuage any concerns, you know, on the part of you know, both the airport director and potentially the airlines that we are you know uh we're not trying to create a chain effect here.

We are you know aware that there is a need for a holistic ground transportation uh ordinance or an update to the ordinance.

Um, but in the conversation, as I mentioned earlier that we had yesterday, there's no definitive timeline on that yet.

And when I asked the question, uh they you know provided a response that was essentially we don't have the ground transportation survey completed yet.

You know, they won't be able to uh start working on drafting an ordinance that updates the you know, kind of comprehensive or holistic ground transportation ordinance until uh that happens, they can start to work on some of the operational side of things based off of feedback and and various things that they're already aware of, but you know, it likely will not happen um, you know, well, it definitely won't happen this session.

Um, and you know, could their target is to try and you know get it done sometime next session, whether that's later this year or next year, um, but there was no absolute or definitive time frame that was provided.

That's kind of a goal um of theirs.

But um I I wanted to make sure that you know uh pertaining to this particular part of the amendment that we're acknowledging that you know we do support a holistic ground transportation ordinance uh and uh want to acknowledge that this is a kind of one-off situation due to the existing uh you know industry trends and uh challenges that we've already heard about exhaustively at this point.

Um any questions about this particular amendment or comments or this part of the amendment.

Uh and then the last uh you know, whereas clause that I would like to have inserted reads, whereas by most recently entering into a no-bid contract approved by the airport authority on August 7th and executed by the airport director on September 1st, 2025, they recently recognize the need for regulations and restrictions about peer-to-peer operators at and around the airport.

And that's just simply another acknowledgement that this is something that the airport and airport authority have already promulgated rules and restrictions around that.

Uh, and so this board is simply further acting upon what has already been undertaken by the airport authority and airport staff.

So, you know, the airport director and her letter, you know, said that you know, this is not standardized process.

She is correct.

However, this is already acknowledged uh by the airport authority and airport staff, and we're simply taking the steps to codify what has already been approved by the airport authority and the airport staff.

So it is not, you know, um completely out of bounds or out of line um, you know, with the existing process.

Um and any questions, comments, concerns about that particular clause.

Oh, Alderwoman Coxyantui.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, not on amendment, but I did just want to ask one quick question going back to amendment two.

Um, I know it's unfortunate that uh we don't have a representative from uh the airport here today to uh answer questions, but you may uh know their intention with uh potentially the upcoming ground transportation survey and the ground transportation ordinance that is needed uh in the uh current uh committee substitute that we have.

I know there was a previous ground transportation ordinance reference that doesn't include peer-to-peer operators.

Would this future ground transportation ordinance that they're seeking uh seek to incorporate those?

Uh just based off of the conversation that I had yesterday, um, yes, that that is their goal to include uh which in the event that or when I should say uh that is adopted, that could potentially alter this particular ordinance, you know, if passed by this committee and this board and signed into law by the mayor.

So any future ordinance has the potential to update any, you know, potential you know, legislation that we pass here as well.

But you know, to answer your question directly, yes.

Um that is my understanding.

And they're you know, also you know, hoping to address some of the newer industries that have popped up just within the past year, as I mentioned earlier, you know, as an example, Waymo is another one that they would you know like to try and incorporate into an updated ground transportation ordinance.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

I think it's helpful to to know that this uh uh this current bill, if we pass it out of committee today, is potentially able to address some of the ongoing concerns, but there will be future opportunities to have this discussion and address any issues going forward.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Any further discussion on I I'm just going to adopt this as one amendment with all three whereas clauses because they're being inserted into the same place.

Um further discussion seeing none, I would like to move that we adopt amendment one with all three whereas clauses to board bill 25 committee substitute.

It's been moved by the chair, seconded by aldermen from the second that we adopt the amendments to uh board bill 25 committee substitute.

Madam's role.

There has been a request for previous role.

Is there any objection to previous role?

Hearing and seeing none, uh board bill committee substitute as amended is now before us.

Um discussion on the board bill and its entirety at this point.

Seeing none, uh I'll time to share.

Sorry.

I'm sorry, I didn't see your hand, Alder Woman.

Uh please.

That's okay.

Uh thank you so much.

Um my question is specifically around section five, which is to do with the fees and charges piece.

I am making sure that that is what is in the current permit for any peer-to-peer operators at the airport now, and this isn't changing anything that's been said or as part of what is what is happening in the operations.

Uh no, Alder Woman.

That is uh that is based off of the existing contract with the uh with the organization that's uh doing ground-to-ground transportation operations.

Uh so that is in line with what is already being paid, so it doesn't change anything from that perspective.

Thank you.

And do you imagine that if the new gram ground transportation uh policy goes into place and is is you know, like it's as you said, it hasn't been changed, and no, this one mentions 2013, but I think you said 2020.

Um I guess I would not want to have something in law that dictates a cost that is something you know that limits us in the future from you know dealing with inflation or just changes to um you know the industry in terms of how much makes sense to charge.

I is it your understanding that this will be a piece that is just generally addressed by a new ground transportation agreement, or is in something that eventually will you know change with the times, or how do you anticipate that going forward?

Yeah, as I I mentioned earlier, Alderwoman.

Um I I very much support a holistic update to our ground transportation ordinance.

Um so at that point in time, you know, any concerns or changes that would need to be addressed, uh, including if there are any concerns or issues related to that particular section of the board bill, um, I would be happy to support that at that time as well.

Yeah, because I don't I don't and this is just my my uh I'm not sure that it's written out in other parts, the exact percentage paid, or is it for other um car rental platforms?

So I I believe when I sent out the amendment or the original committee substitute last week, I also included the existing language and the ordinances.

Um it's not redlined, it's blue lined.

Um, you know, where this changes uh the ground the existing ground transportation ordinance.

So to my knowledge, I don't believe that there is a specified percentage, but there is definitions around gross receipts and uh you know how various contracts can be administered in terms of um percentages, mags, uh, you know, minimum annual guarantees.

Um the existing contract with this particular ground-to-ground transportation operator does not have a mag involved in it.

Um so this is largely just mirroring what what has already and again you know trying to address some of the concerns, we're just mirroring what's already been authorized by the airport commission.

Um, so that we're trying to address some of those concerns related to uh this body's authority and any concerns that the airlines might have with us uh being viewed as potentially stepping out of our bounds.

Okay, I I do wish that someone from the airport were here to answer questions today.

It's it's an important topic and something that I I know we all want to get right, and it's hard to have a letter that we can't address.

So I will be giving uh director Hamdenberg a call later to understand a little bit more.

Um, because it seems like this section in particular is what is much more specific than so many other things that we're looking at from a you know general view at the airport, unless we're talking about specific contracts that we are um only really involved in if it's a certain length of time.

So that that so Alder Woman, there are specific dollar amounts that are specified in the ordinance already.

Um the existing ordinance.

So you know, the fees and charge as an example, uh, you know, section section section six um addresses fees and charges and the existing ordinance, and in the existing ordinance, you know, there's a fee schedule for various ground transportation operators or charter bus operators or off uh airport parking operators.

So there are fee schedules that are already enumerated in the ordinance and they have specific dollar amounts as okay.

Thank you.

That's incredibly helpful and makes and answers my concerns.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh sorry, I just had to pull that up to be able to view that real quick.

Um further discussion.

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion on board bill 25 committee substitute as amended.

That's not a motion.

I move uh we adopt board bill 25 with the due pass direct approved.

Yeah.

Okay.

It's been moved by the alderman from the second that we pass board bill 25 committees substitute as amended with a due pass recommendation.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been seconded by the alder woman from the eighth.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Ryan.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox Antwee.

Aye.

Chair Cohn.

Aye.

Five aye votes.

With that motion, you uh pass Board Bill 25 committee substitute as amended out of committee with a due pass recommendation.

That is the last of the business before us during today's committee hearing.

I appreciate everyone's time.

Um I am sure we will continue to have conversations around this well into the future.

I look forward to those.

And again, thank you for everyone's time this morning.

Uh we had all members present, madam clerk.

Members were present.

And with that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

I move that we adjourn.

Second previous role.

Been moved by the alderman or alder woman from the eighth, seconded by the alderman from the second.

There's been a request for previous roll by the first.

Is there any objection?

Seeing none, we stand adjourned.