Mirror Finish Polishing ~ 1-816-529-6089 ~ sales@mirrorfinishpolishing.com ~ mirrorfinishpolishing.com For the best rate on home, auto, life or business/commercial insurance call me at 888-959-0955, cell 636-734-1310 or bricehazelwood@weiss-ins.com. Never Done Garage - donewhenimdead.com Peerless Automotive Reconditioning - 1155 W. Dennis Ave, Olathe Ks, 66061 - 913-893-1201 Mark H. Epstein ~ The Epstein Law Firm, LLC ~ 913-396-5123 Wilkes Automotive ~ wilkesautomotive.com ~ 246 Marion St, Olathe, KS 66061 ~ 913-254-7171 Skandalous Inc ~ www.skandalousinc.com DIY Auto Repair Inc ~ www.diyautorepairkc.com ~ 11509 Strangline Rd, Olathe KS 66062 ~ 913-226-3806 Your advertisement here! The Law Offices of Jeremiah Johnson, LLC ~ 104 E. Poplar, Olathe, KS 66061 ~ (913)764-5010 ~ www.kcatty.com - www.johnsoncountydui.com ~ jeremiah@kcatty.com Santa Fe Body, Inc ~ 8717 Lenexa Drive, Overland Park, KS 66214 ~ (913) 894-6090 House of Boost LLC Nude? HouseofHID.com - The #1 source for HID The Print Shop KC 816.200.6694 or Ryan@RMD-Photography.com the art of tyleR ~ http://tyleR.bigcartel.com ~ TYLERcoey.com ~ MUTTtoy.com ~ MUTTtoy@gmail.com W-K Chevrolet Buick Pontiac Cadillac GMC ~ 3310 W. Broadway, Sedalia, MO 65301 ~ 800-382-5088 ~ Cell 660-553-8928 ~ dustin@wkchevy.com ~ www.wkchevy.com

Go Back   KCSR - THE Kansas City Forum > General Forums > Politics, Religion, Current Events

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 2017-05-11, 08:38 PM   #226
ForcFed93
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 4,099
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 16
Thanks (Received): 96
Likes (Given): 333
Likes (Received): 666
Dislikes (Given): 2
Dislikes (Received): 29
Default

While I love the idea of a new KCI, I'm dreading the inconvenience of when it's under construction.
ForcFed93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-05-11, 09:00 PM   #227
JDLM
╭∩╮(Ο_Ο)╭∩╮
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lenexa
Posts: 159,512
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Burns & McDonnell proposes private financing for new KCI single terminal


Burns & McDonnell, one of Kansas City’s foremost engineering firms, has proposed to privately build and finance a new single terminal at Kansas City International Airport, as a way to finally garner voter approval and get the controversial airport project done.
Burns & McDonnell has quietly floated to city government officials that it would be the lead firm in creating the design and doing the construction work. It says it has committed to using local labor, suppliers, contractors and subcontractors to the extent possible.
The Kansas City-based firm also would come up with the financing for a project that is estimated to cost about $1 billion. It plans to put money into the project itself, attract other investors and line up private lenders to complete the financing.
Such a financing would be unusual for a U.S. airport, as most airport improvements in this country are financed through airport revenue bonds. Some European airports have been privately financed.
The advantage of this plan, according to company representatives and Mayor Sly James, is that Kansas City would issue no bonds and bear no taxpayer risk if the airport failed to generate the revenues needed to pay off the construction and other costs, including overruns.
In a meeting with The Kansas City Star’s editorial board Thursday, James said the city has been trying for five years to come up with an airport improvement plan that voters will support. He said a sticking point has been that city taxpayers think they would be on the hook — even though they wouldn’t be because airport improvements are paid for by airport users.
Private financing, James said, would remove any question of taxpayer risk.
“That’s a Kansas City innovative solution to a Kansas City sticky problem,” James said. “It’s something the airlines are comfortable with. It reduces the risk. It gets our airport built.”
However, even if the city proceeds with this private financing option, James said, it still would have an election in November. The ballot would ask the voters to sign off on this new terminal construction plan. That vote would happen because the City Council promised a vote in response to a 2014 citizens petition requiring a public election on any major KCI improvements.
If voters say no, James acknowledged, “we’re screwed.”
Burns & McDonnell has been quietly discussing its idea with council members for the past week or so, and had hoped to delay a public presentation until late next week. But when details started to leak out, the mayor and company officials provided an overview Thursday to the editorial board. They emphasized that the details are not yet final and that more will become clearer in the coming days.
The mayor and Councilwoman Jolie Justus, chairwoman of the council’s airport committee, said they hoped to introduce a memorandum of understanding at next Thursday’s council meeting with more details. That memorandum of understanding would be subject to public hearings and a council vote.
One key to the proposal for Burns & McDonnell is that it would get an exclusive arrangement with the city to provide the design and come up with a guaranteed maximum price.
Other firms would not have access to make their own offer, nor would the city request bids. James said the city would waive bidding requirements in accepting this plan and that it is legal for the city to do that.
The exclusive arrangement struck Steve McDowell, CEO of architecture firm BNIM in Kansas City, as possibly missing an opportunity given the strength of the city’s architectural design talent pool.






“Some of the best work in the country is coming out of our city, and I’d hate to see that not taken advantage of for the design of our gateway,” McDowell said.
BNIM’s predecessor firm was involved in KCI’s original design, and the firm has partnered with HNTB to work with the city in its efforts to update the airport.
If the city and voters accept Burns & McDonnell’s offer, the company would build the new airport.
Councilwoman Teresa Loar, a Northlander who has been skeptical about a new single terminal for KCI, said Thursday that she thought the no-bid aspect of this idea would be a concern for her and perhaps others as well.
She said she’s eager to learn more about the proposal. But she’s not sure that airport financing is the biggest issue with Kansas City voters.
“I think people love their airport,” she said, noting that many airport users don’t want huge changes to the horseshoe-terminal configuration. Polling in the past has found significant voter opposition to a single-terminal concept. Conversely, many business travelers, and the airlines, have said KCI’s existing cramped terminals need to be replaced.
Several council members said Thursday that they’d had only preliminary meetings with Burns & McDonnell about the plan and were reserving judgment. Others said they had been contacted but had not yet been briefed.
Mayor Pro Tem Scott Wagner said he was familiar with the proposal, which he said comes at a time when the city must make a decision on modernizing the airport.
“You cannot just kind of kick the can forever,” Wagner said. “You’ve got to do something. So this group has come forward to offer an alternative way to getting it done.”
Wagner said this idea does offer taxpayers some assurance that no taxpayer dollars would be diverted to the airport. And in exchange for Burns & McDonnell’s agreeing to assume that risk, the firm gets to do the work.
“From my perspective, if someone wants to step up and accept risk, there’s obviously a price for that risk, which probably means they get to do the project,” Wagner said.
Ray Kowalik, CEO of Burns & McDonnell, said the firm ranks No. 3 in airport design and construction in the country and is currently working on a huge project at LaGuardia Airport in New York City. The company also oversaw the most recent improvements of KCI’s existing terminals, from 2001-2004.
Burns & McDonnell said it would set a guaranteed maximum price for the project, which Kowalik said was critical to getting the private lenders to provide financing. He thinks it will be close to an amount that airlines proposed a year ago, when they publicly advocated a single terminal and said they would finance it. That cost estimate was about $964 million in 2015 dollars.
Kowalik acknowledged that private financing would carry a higher interest rate than if municipal aviation bonds financed the project. Those additional interest costs can be offset, he said, by starting the project sooner and finishing it quicker.
“We’re going to beat 2024 significantly, and that helps with the financing model,” Kowalik said.
Repayment of the financing would come from revenue the airport generates through fees and other collections from the airlines that operate there. Those costs generally are passed along to passengers in ticket prices, much like fuel costs and other expenses. But supporters of the plan point out that tickets would not be expected to rise by more than a few dollars.
If that stream of revenue falls short of what’s needed to cover the private financing, the city wouldn’t be obligated to make up the difference. Airlines would be obligated.
Mike Brown, president of Burns & McDonnell International, said the financing model essentially is the same one that airlines operating at KCI agreed to a year ago, with the difference being that the financing is coming from private sources rather than the aviation revenue bonds.
The airlines, led by Southwest Airlines as the airport’s largest carrier, are set to meet and discuss the proposal Friday. Burns & McDonnell officials said they’ve gotten “nods” of approval from the carriers but are waiting to hear what the group decides at that session.
One risk for Burns & McDonnell is that it is working on the design and pricing without a guarantee that its proposal will win approval either from the City Council or voters in November. Kowalik said the company has 25 employees working full time on the effort and would eat those costs if no deal emerges.
Kowalik said the company made the offer in response to the mayor’s challenge a year ago. At that time, the airlines had announced that they wanted to move forward with a plan to replace the existing terminals with a new single terminal where the shuttered Terminal A is now. They wanted the city to hold an election in which voters would approve airport revenue bonds in August 2016.
James also wanted an election in August, but polling showed the new terminal concept was a nonstarter with voters. So the mayor put airport planning on “pause” last May. He said that if the Kansas City business community wanted a modern, functional airport that could contribute to business growth and economic development, then business executives would have to lead that charge.
Kowalik said his company took the mayor’s plea to heart and started working on this private financing idea in earnest about nine months ago. He said the company also stepped into the process because the airport’s current configuration is bad for business.
Its employees take about 33,000 flights a year at KCI and struggle too often to go where their customers are.
“It’s hard to get places, and we’re losing flights,” Kowalik said.
If voters reject the proposal? “Then we stay a second-class airport city,” Kowalik said.
James said he sees companies set up satellite offices in other markets because they can’t efficiently serve them from Kansas City because of the airport.
He’s also worried that if Kansas City doesn’t upgrade its airport soon, Johnson County could step into the vacuum and build its own airport and rob Kansas City of a vital economic engine.
“If you lose your airport, your businesses follow,” the mayor said. “I’m not going to be part of that.”
__________________

AW|E90|ZSP|ZPP|2XA|NAV|HID| ///M | BMS |JB4 | VRSF



JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-05-15, 10:00 PM   #228
JDLM
╭∩╮(Ο_Ο)╭∩╮
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lenexa
Posts: 159,512
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Dave Helling: New terminal at KCI won’t be cheap, and it definitely won’t be free


Just a few hours after city officials outlined plans for a single terminal in Kansas City International Airport, misinformation began to circulate.
“It won’t cost you a dime!” one television anchor said. “Citizens aren’t paying for a new airport,” tweeted a local media consultant.
Let’s clear this up now: If you use the airport, you will help pay for the new terminal. You will pay more to fly if the proposal passes.
That’s true today, it was true a week ago and will be true next year. You can’t build a $1 billion facility for free.
The confusion, while frustrating, is understandable. When local engineering firm Burns & McDonnell said it would “privately finance” the project, some thought that meant the company would pay for the terminal out of its own pocket.
No. It means the company will borrow most of the money, like you might for a house. It will pay the lenders back with airport charges, parking fees and other spending at KCI. The airlines will add charges to your ticket, too.
Why would Burns & McDonnell agree to replace the city as the borrower for a new terminal? Because the city agreed to let the company design and build the facility — without bids, without competition. That means serious money.
Why would the city agree to the deal? So it can tell voters — before a planned November election — that no taxpayer dollars are at risk at the airport.
That has always been true, but the deal allows city politicians to double pinkie-swear that Kansas Citians who don’t fly won’t have to pay.
Careful readers may now say: Surely there’s a catch. And there is.
It will cost more for Burns & McDonnell to borrow money than it would for the city. The city might pay 3 percent interest on airport borrowing, while Burns & McDonnell could face 5 or 6 percent.
Anyone who has ever borrowed to buy a home can tell you what a difference that makes.
It’s up to Burns & McDonnell to make the numbers work. The memorandum of understanding between the company and the city calls for annual “targets” of up to $85.2 million in revenue to repay the terminal borrowing. Last fiscal year, the airport said it generated $57.5 million for debt service. Almost everyone thinks more money will be needed.
City officials think efficient construction of a new terminal, more passengers and economic growth will help fill the gap. If the fund still falls short of $85 million, though, the airlines — actually, you — will make up the difference.
Burns & McDonnell could pursue a different option, of course: build a smaller, cheaper terminal with inexpensive materials and finishes. A cheaper terminal means borrowing less money, which could help keep the project under the $85.2 million annual cap.
Either way, private financing of a new terminal changes the equation: either higher travel prices or a cheaper facility.
And voters will face that choice because the city wants private financing. Not necessarily because it’s better, but because it will make the entire package easier to sell to voters.
Perhaps it’s a deal worth making. The bargain includes a new airport terminal. That should count for something.
But voters should be clear: Building a new terminal at KCI will cost more than a dime. Several billion of them, as a matter of fact.
__________________

AW|E90|ZSP|ZPP|2XA|NAV|HID| ///M | BMS |JB4 | VRSF



JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-05-18, 08:26 AM   #229
shaun y
Mr 49er
 
shaun y's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: الكافر المشرف
Posts: 15,774
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 164
Thanks (Received): 142
Likes (Given): 3417
Likes (Received): 1009
Dislikes (Given): 187
Dislikes (Received): 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phreakdna View Post
the point I feel like both of you are looking past is the idea that for many business travelers (the frequent fliers of the industry that have more sway - albeit limited - in how often/where airlines book layovers, etc) if the airport doesn't have certain amenities; a decent bar, decent change times, reasonable ways to charge your mobile office, etc then they will avoid it purposefully.

no its not for every traveler and no its not as though it needs to be a glimmering palace with every amenity but rather it needs to not be a place to avoid (which the current airport is despite its water fountains and numerous shitters )

I am on the more utilitarian side of business traveler (but my volumes are lower - typically 15-20 round trips a year) and yet when I talk to people in my industry who essentially have to plan "trips" to be home and have their kids recognize them, they expect certain amenities that KCI doesn't have and they will actively avoid it because of that. some of them will take maybe 100 flights in the next year so their opinion matters more than dozens of families to the airlines.

I'd be intrigued to see the economic impact of going from an airport that is primarily used as the start/end of trips vs one that gets a moderate amount of layovers in addition... that'd be a much better discussion point for whichever side it helps.
you raise a great point about the people that travel 100 times a year and why they might be influenced by that. i think those people are very rare though. i only fly about 3x a year and i would say on my flights at least 75% of people appear to be families and couples and just people that are obviously not on a business trip... so for every one of your jet-setters there are probably a hundred people that fly 3x a year. whose impact is more? the casual flyer or the business class? that would be interesting to find out
__________________
shaun y is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-05-18, 08:30 AM   #230
JDLM
╭∩╮(Ο_Ο)╭∩╮
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lenexa
Posts: 159,512
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Editorial: Questions remain about Burns & McDonnell’s plan for KCI; the City Council needs to answer them


The Kansas City Council is expected to hear more details Thursday about an unusual and very complex plan to build a new terminal at Kansas City International Airport.
The proposal, offered by local engineering firm Burns & McDonnell, calls for privately financing the $1 billion project. Council members must take as much time as needed to explore the details and protect the interests of taxpayers and the flying public.
That does not appear to be the view of Mayor Sly James. After negotiating the plan in secret for several weeks, the mayor is pushing the council to quickly agree to the deal by the middle of June, just four weeks from now.
The City Council must resist that pressure. Moving too fast could result in a flawed agreement that is more costly than it needs to be. It also risks confusion and frustration among voters, who would be asked in November to render their verdict on the deal.
We have called for a November election on the airport terminal. That was before we learned of the deal with Burns & McDonnell, a blueprint that has seriously complicated the decision-making process.
We applaud the council members who are reaching out to the public, asking for comments about the Burns & McDonnell plan. We also support the hiring of outside legal counsel to review the agreement.
A November vote is still possible. But the last-minute introduction of the Burns & McDonnell proposal has put important new issues on the table:
▪ Why didn’t the city ask other firms to bid on the proposal? The Burns & McDonnell plan may be the best option for Kansas City, but there is no way to know that for sure until other companies offer their ideas.
▪ What’s in it for the company? Kansas Citians must know, in hard dollar figures, the fees and income the company expects to realize from the airport project.
▪ What are the advantages and disadvantages of the unique private financing plan? We know private financing will cost more. What justifies the added expense?
▪ What role will citizens play in design review? Will elected officials be allowed to sign off on the terminal after Burns & McDonnell finishes its design, or will they be handed the plans as a finished document?
▪ What do the airlines think of the agreement?
▪ How much, exactly, will the terminal cost? Will Burns & McDonnell cut corners if costs get too high?
These questions, and others, simply weren’t being asked a week ago. They must be answered before the City Council moves forward.
The deadline for putting the terminal on the November ballot is Aug. 24. There is no need to hurry a final judgment on the Burns & McDonnell plan.
The mayor will argue against a delay. But he cannot expect his colleagues to reach an informed conclusion on one of the biggest public works projects in city history without time to consider the evidence.
We’ve said it before: Kansas City can’t afford to make a mistake on this project. Its citizens must take whatever time is needed to fully understand what they’re being asked to do.
__________________

AW|E90|ZSP|ZPP|2XA|NAV|HID| ///M | BMS |JB4 | VRSF



JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-05-18, 08:31 AM   #231
JDLM
╭∩╮(Ο_Ο)╭∩╮
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lenexa
Posts: 159,512
Post Thanks / Like
Default


Original KCI designer: New terminal could have dangerous possibilities


A designer of the original KCI Airport said that plans for a new terminal could make the facility more of a target for terrorists.

Ron Hicks helped put the original design plans together in the late 1960s. He said KCI was innovative for its time, which added to the challenges for its design.

"It was a major task," he explained. "There was a lot of thought that went into the facilities by the architects."

As fliers know, KCI has undergone all sorts of changes since it opened.

Previous story: Consultants review plans to build new terminal at KCI

Security, for one, had to be overhauled shortly after the airport opened its doors due to a rash of plane hijackings in the 1970s.

Now, with the original design and current security measures in place, Hicks said the airport shouldn't be changed.

"Our facility, and the way it's designed, is not terrorist friendly," Hicks said. "This current design is the ideal design for safety."

For the past several years, Kansas City leaders have talked about either renovating the current airport or building a brand new terminal. Airline officials have made it known they prefer the plans for a new terminal, but some fliers continue to stand by the current design and it's convenience to getting to gates.

Last December, costs for the final four future plans for KCI were revealed. The two plans that deal with building a new terminal would cost around $970 million, while renovating two current terminals would cost between $1.04 billion and $1.19 billion.

Part of the new terminal plans involves consolidating the security checkpoints into one centralized area.

Hicks said the centralized security zone could increase the odds of Kansas City seeing an attack similar to the one at a Brussels, Belgium airport earlier this week.

"As we take on more hubs, which normally happens when you have a new airport, you become a more likely target," he explained.

Hicks said having one security area could lead to bigger crowds forming and a better opportunity for terrorists to take lives over the current design.

"Security is currently divided amongst so many different places in the pods, you're only going to be affecting one small area," Hicks said. "The new designs improve efficiency, but they're not going to beat what we have now with the pod design."

Kansas City Councilman Dan Fowler serves on the airport committee. He said the new terminal plans address current security concerns at KCI, like the close distance from the road to the gates.

"You'll be farther away from the concourses, the flights and the fuel," he explained.

Fowler also said having a new terminal could help Kansas City stay on top of terrorism trends.

"I think a new terminal would make it easier to adjust to those threats," said Fowler.

Regardless of whether or not a new terminal gets built, Fowler said security will always be a top priority at KCI.

"There's always some crazy person who's going to be out there coming up with some new idea," he explained. "We have our people ready to adapt."

The future of KCI will ultimately be decided by the public. In the meantime, city leaders are still deciding on what plan to put forward for either rebuilding or renovating KCI. Their next meeting on the issue is on April 12.
__________________

AW|E90|ZSP|ZPP|2XA|NAV|HID| ///M | BMS |JB4 | VRSF




Last edited by JDLM; 2017-05-18 at 08:34 AM..
JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-05-18, 08:49 AM   #232
KUweatherman
Super Moderator
 
KUweatherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Olathe
Posts: 41,463
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 402
Thanks (Received): 363
Likes (Given): 4971
Likes (Received): 2124
Dislikes (Given): 123
Dislikes (Received): 174
Default

Of course he would say that. His group was wanting to be the ones that built the new KCI...
__________________
KUweatherman is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-05-18, 09:56 AM   #233
Keboh
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Overland Park
Posts: 13,699
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 213
Thanks (Received): 252
Likes (Given): 2496
Likes (Received): 1683
Dislikes (Given): 24
Dislikes (Received): 47
Default

That is a ridiculous argument. He's appealing to irrational fears... Fuck that guy.
Keboh is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-06-15, 12:01 PM   #234
JDLM
╭∩╮(Ο_Ο)╭∩╮
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lenexa
Posts: 159,512
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Deadline for new KCI terminal plans pushed back























KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Mayor Sly James and City Council members decided on Tuesday to push back the deadline for proposals to build a possible new terminal at Kansas City International Airport.
The two-hour meeting was held behind closed doors inside City Hall.
Firms interested in being a part of new terminal talks will now have an additional 45 days from Tuesday to submit their qualifications and experience for the project.
Those same firms will have an additional 15 days after that deadline to submit a complete funding package for their proposal.
The decision on Tuesday was made after multiple firms came forward to City Council and said they did not have enough time to gather information and resources to meet the original June 20th deadline.
Burns & McDonnell kicked off the new round of KCI new terminal talks after submitting an unsolicited bid featuring private financing in early May.
Los Angeles-based engineering firm AECOM and Kansas City-based HNTB Corporation soon followed and expressed interest in being part of the project.
On Tuesday, 41 Action News learned from a City Council member that Garver, an Overland Park-based engineering firm, and Oak Tree Capital Management, an international investment group, had also expressed an interest in being part of the new terminal project.
With the extension of the deadline for new terminal proposals, City Councilwoman Jolie Justus said more companies could come forward.
"This is wide open to anybody who can meet the qualifications,” Justus said. “You get 45 days to tell us why you are qualified for this project, and you get an additional 15 days on top of that to talk about your specific proposal for financing."
Moving forward, Justus said the extension of the deadline would lead to a smoother process with KCI’s future.
“We are very confident in the product we're putting out today,” she explained. “We are confident in the process going forward. It is transparent and clear what we're asking for. Now the market is going to come forward and see what opportunities are available."
How to pay for a possible new terminal still needs to be decided on by City Council.
All firms putting forward a proposal will be required to submit a plan featuring private financing.
However, City Councilwoman Katheryn Shields told 41 Action News that all private financing options will be compared to the same plan using public money or airport revenue bonds.

Despite recent developments in the talks over KCI, City Council said the city still planned to hold a public vote in November to determine whether or not a new terminal should be built.
__________________

AW|E90|ZSP|ZPP|2XA|NAV|HID| ///M | BMS |JB4 | VRSF



JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-06-15, 12:19 PM   #235
JewelsMari
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,220
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 132
Thanks (Received): 34
Likes (Given): 708
Likes (Received): 284
Dislikes (Given): 3
Dislikes (Received): 2
Default

Interesting.... since the airlines warned them not to keep pushing things back. They said the cost estimates would end up expiring and they'd have to start over from scratch.
__________________
Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. ~ Calvin (and Hobbes)
JewelsMari is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-06-23, 11:07 AM   #236
shaun y
Mr 49er
 
shaun y's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: الكافر المشرف
Posts: 15,774
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 164
Thanks (Received): 142
Likes (Given): 3417
Likes (Received): 1009
Dislikes (Given): 187
Dislikes (Received): 144
Default

Ok I am here for the first time ever right now. I don't know if the other terminals are different but the one I'm in is ghetto as fuck. The bathroom once you get through security literally has one urinal and one stall for about 300 men. Are you serious? Also it's cramped as fuck in here. I will actively avoid this shithole in the future.
__________________
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Likes KUweatherman liked this post
shaun y is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-06-23, 03:06 PM   #237
KUweatherman
Super Moderator
 
KUweatherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Olathe
Posts: 41,463
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 402
Thanks (Received): 363
Likes (Given): 4971
Likes (Received): 2124
Dislikes (Given): 123
Dislikes (Received): 174
Default

Similar thoughts to my recent flight out of there. Need that new airport stat!
__________________
KUweatherman is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-08-15, 10:30 AM   #238
JDLM
╭∩╮(Ο_Ο)╭∩╮
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lenexa
Posts: 159,512
Post Thanks / Like
Default





http://www.kshb.com/news/news-photo-...w-kci-terminal#














One proposal for new KCI terminal says it will save $462 million off initial plan



When AECOM paid a visit to the KCI selection committee Monday, the Los Angeles-based engineering firm was expected to argue that it can finance a single terminal at a big cost savings compared to an earlier arrangement Kansas City had considered with Burns & McDonnell.
AECOM, along with Turner Construction and Oaktree Capital Management, formed KCI Partnership, one of four consortiums making their case on Monday before a city selection committee for a design, build and finance contract to build a single terminal.
KCI Partnership believes its $1 billion single terminal concept for KCI would cost $462 million less over 30 years than the deal Kansas City contemplated with Burns & McDonnell before opening up the project to competitive proposals. A summary of the KCI Partnership proposal was obtained by The Star.


Ian McNamara, a spokesman for KCI Partnership, was not available to comment.


Conceptual rendering
KCI Partnership









KCI Partnership builds its case by pledging that it can build a 35-gate, $1 billion terminal building with a financing structure that pays off the debt over 30 years with fixed annual payments of $69.8 million that include debt service and equity return.
That’s compared to $85.2 million, which was the maximum amount that the airlines would have agreed to repay project financing and other costs under a proposed memorandum of understanding between City Hall and Burns & McDonnell. That memorandum surfaced in May but never went into effect.
It’s not clear if a Burns & McDonnell concept would have maxed out at the $85.2 million figure; the firm had not yet finalized its design for a single terminal by the time City Hall in June decided to open up the KCI project to competition.
“Our proposal is based on an annual financial commitment from the airlines which could be as low as $58 million; down significantly from the airlines’ maximum annual debt payment commitment of $85.2 million,” Burns & McDonnell said in a statement. “As this is a qualifications based selection, we’ll continue to work with the stakeholders — the airlines, the City and the community — and look forward to developing the right project at the right price for Kansas City.”


The KCI Partnership summary indicated that it could obtain an interest rate of 3.99 percent, less than a percentage point above what the document points to for interest on airport revenue bonds, which is the typical way cities and airport authorities fund terminal projects. It is also putting $115 million in equity into the project.

Conceptual rendering
KCI Partnership





The KCI Partnership proposal also gives three other options for terminal designs. One is a $1.3 billion option that, according to the proposal summary, adds an elevated walkway between the terminal and the airline gates that allow planes to taxi underneath. This feature, similar to the walkway from the main terminal to concourse A at Denver International Airport, is thought to improve airport efficiency.
The two other options are lower-cost alternatives that start with 25 gates and can be expanded later. The KCI Partnership’s analysis of KCI’s air traffic indicated that 21 gates were in use at peak hour demand, meaning KCI could conceivably operate initially with fewer gates and result in fewer operational costs. KCI Partnership’s projected lowest cost option is $872 million.


The KCI Partnership’s proposal summary also commits to reaching between 30 and 35 percent women- and minority-owned business participation both for the terminal’s design and construction work.
Kansas City’s solicitation for the airport project does not spell out goals for women- and minority-owned business participation goals, and won’t until a winning proposal is selected.

Conceptual rendering
KCI Partnership





KCI Partnership’s goal is a lofty one; Kansas City, along with agencies including the Tax Increment Financing Commission and the Planned Industrial Expansion Authority, awarded 25 percent of its construction and professional service contracts to woman- and minority-owned businesses, according to the city’s human relations department’s 2016 annual report.
KCI Partnership’s proposal also says it would establish what it calls the KCI Legacy Fund, a $5 million loan guarantee program administered by Liberty Bank. The fund is meant to provide access to money for women- and minority-owned businesses and help new, small businesses get their affairs in order.
KCI Partnership will be the second firm to present to the KCI selection committee on Monday. The selection committee consists of Kansas City councilmembers Jermaine Reed and Jolie Justus, City Manager Troy Schulte, aviation department director Pat Klein, aviation department chief financial officer John Green and airport engineer Phil Muncy.
The first headed before the committee is led by Jones Lang LaSalle. The third is a team led by Edgemoor Infrastructure & Real Estate. Burns & McDonnell, the Kansas City firm that played a pivotal role in re-starting the KCI discussion, goes last.
Steve Vockrodt: 816-234-4277, @st_vockrodt

This story has been updated to correct an earlier version to reflect that John Green is on the selection committee.





A rendering of a plan to build a new Kansas City International airport terminal supplied by KCI Partnership. KCI Partnership





A rendering of a plan to build a new Kansas City International airport terminal supplied by KCI Partnership. KCI Partnership
__________________

AW|E90|ZSP|ZPP|2XA|NAV|HID| ///M | BMS |JB4 | VRSF



JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-08-15, 12:55 PM   #239
KUweatherman
Super Moderator
 
KUweatherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Olathe
Posts: 41,463
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 402
Thanks (Received): 363
Likes (Given): 4971
Likes (Received): 2124
Dislikes (Given): 123
Dislikes (Received): 174
Default

I'm 100% for the single terminal, but am not a fan of those renders.
__________________
KUweatherman is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-08-15, 01:58 PM   #240
Keboh
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Overland Park
Posts: 13,699
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 213
Thanks (Received): 252
Likes (Given): 2496
Likes (Received): 1683
Dislikes (Given): 24
Dislikes (Received): 47
Default

I'm for the airport being Uber-range for me. If it is close to similar for me to simply take an Uber to the airport as it is for me to park in economy, IDGAF how many terminals it has. Bring that mother F down here to KS!
Keboh is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-08-15, 04:28 PM   #241
JewelsMari
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,220
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 132
Thanks (Received): 34
Likes (Given): 708
Likes (Received): 284
Dislikes (Given): 3
Dislikes (Received): 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KUweatherman View Post
I'm 100% for the single terminal, but am not a fan of those renders.
Why?
__________________
Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. ~ Calvin (and Hobbes)
JewelsMari is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-08-15, 10:56 PM   #242
bonecrusher
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: kansas
Posts: 14,720
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 7
Thanks (Received): 40
Likes (Given): 85
Likes (Received): 347
Dislikes (Given): 8
Dislikes (Received): 19
Default

looks nice.

My only issue with any and all government, city, state, federal jobs is this type of stuff.

"The KCI Partnership’s proposal summary also commits to reaching between 30 and 35 percent women- and minority-owned business participation both for the terminal’s design and construction work.
Kansas City’s solicitation for the airport project does not spell out goals for women- and minority-owned business participation goals, and won’t until a winning proposal is selected."


So essentially 1/3 of the work will not go to the most qualified or lowest bid, sort of like hiring someone just because they are a minority or female to meet a quota.
bonecrusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-08-16, 08:29 AM   #243
Keboh
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Overland Park
Posts: 13,699
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 213
Thanks (Received): 252
Likes (Given): 2496
Likes (Received): 1683
Dislikes (Given): 24
Dislikes (Received): 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bonecrusher View Post
looks nice.

My only issue with any and all government, city, state, federal jobs is this type of stuff.

"The KCI Partnership’s proposal summary also commits to reaching between 30 and 35 percent women- and minority-owned business participation both for the terminal’s design and construction work.
Kansas City’s solicitation for the airport project does not spell out goals for women- and minority-owned business participation goals, and won’t until a winning proposal is selected."

So essentially 1/3 of the work will not go to the most qualified or lowest bid, sort of like hiring someone just because they are a minority or female to meet a quota.
Not necessarily true. It's possible for someone to be the most qualified and/or lowest bidder as well as a minority or woman. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Keboh is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-08-16, 08:36 AM   #244
jwdb1fish
 
jwdb1fish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sharpening my harpoon.
Posts: 12,095
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 32
Thanks (Received): 461
Likes (Given): 44
Likes (Received): 3909
Dislikes (Given): 7
Dislikes (Received): 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keboh View Post
Not necessarily true. It's possible for someone to be the most qualified and/or lowest bidder as well as a minority or woman. They aren't mutually exclusive.


Standard issue stuff.


When we opened the Applebee's at the Speedway in '03 we were gifted the land by the Unified Government under similar stipulations not only during the construction phase, but also our first five years in operation for all non-national contract services we sourced.


Sometimes we had to compromise price/service/our preferred vendor in order to meet this standard.
__________________
jwdb1fish is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-08-16, 08:51 AM   #245
Keboh
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Overland Park
Posts: 13,699
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 213
Thanks (Received): 252
Likes (Given): 2496
Likes (Received): 1683
Dislikes (Given): 24
Dislikes (Received): 47
Default

I'm just saying that it doesn't necessitate the fact that because it's going to women or minority owned businesses, that it will be sub-par or more expensive, such as bonecrusher noted. I don't doubt at all that there would be some compromised required somewhere along the line to meet a quota... establishing formal quotas typically have that effect.

Last edited by Keboh; 2017-08-16 at 08:54 AM..
Keboh is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-08-16, 09:31 AM   #246
KUweatherman
Super Moderator
 
KUweatherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Olathe
Posts: 41,463
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 402
Thanks (Received): 363
Likes (Given): 4971
Likes (Received): 2124
Dislikes (Given): 123
Dislikes (Received): 174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JewelsMari View Post
Why?
Because it looks like poop. The renders Burns & McDonnell released look better.

http://kcilovethisplace.com/proposal/
__________________
KUweatherman is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-09-06, 12:23 PM   #247
JDLM
╭∩╮(Ο_Ο)╭∩╮
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lenexa
Posts: 159,512
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Burns & McDonnell KCI HOMETOWN Team Requests City Restart the KCI Selection Process Amid Potential Conflicts of Interest


-- The Burns & McDonnell KCI HOMETOWN Team is calling for the City to restart the selection process to pick a firm to design, build and finance a new single-terminal KCI airport. Counsel for the team, legally named Terminal Developer LLC, notified the City attorney with the request this morning, to ensure a fair and transparent process.





"I want to make our client's position clear. Terminal Developer wishes to see KCI Airport redeveloped," says David Frantze, Stinson Leonard Street LLP. "Terminal Developer believes the flaws and irregularities of the current process have precluded a fair decision. Rather than proceed with a selection that is subject to challenge, Terminal Developer believes the current RFQ/P process should be terminated and a new, open process commenced."
Frantze contacted the City attorney Monday evening demanding the City remove its outside legal counsel for the KCI project because of an inherent conflict of interest that created an appearance of impropriety in the selection process.

Frantze pointed out that Husch Blackwell served as legal counsel to Edgemoor Infrastructure and Real Estate with a privately-financed project currently underway at the University of Kansas. Edgemoor is one of the four proposers vying for the KCI project. Charles Renner, who leads the City's outside counsel in the selection process for KCI, also acted as lead attorney to Edgemoor on the University of Kansas project.


"We are very upset to have learned about the existence of a personal relationship between the City's outside legal consultant and one of the proposers," says Mike Brown, vice president, Burns & McDonnell. "This information came to our attention over the weekend and necessitated our advisement to the City."

"Obviously this is terribly disappointing to us in lieu of our position as the preferred proposer by the airlines and the proximity of a pending November election," says Brown. "However, we believe that the citizens of Kansas City deserve a selection process for such an important project for the City that is fair, transparent and conflict-free to all proposers."
__________________

AW|E90|ZSP|ZPP|2XA|NAV|HID| ///M | BMS |JB4 | VRSF



JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-09-06, 02:19 PM   #248
Dave B
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Creating DaveBisms
Posts: 11,963
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 15
Thanks (Received): 133
Likes (Given): 25
Likes (Received): 998
Dislikes (Given): 4
Dislikes (Received): 63
Default

Kind of funny to see Burns & Mc calling out this conflict (which seems very real) considering their own perceived conflicts when obtaining and winning work with the KCMO. Basically, if you're an engineer and are wanting work with KCMO, you'd best hope Burns & Mc. isn't also bidding. Their ties, connections (including financial), prior employees at the City, etc. is just too hard to overcome.
Dave B is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-09-06, 02:30 PM   #249
JDLM
╭∩╮(Ο_Ο)╭∩╮
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lenexa
Posts: 159,512
Post Thanks / Like
Default

KCI committee picks Edgemoor over Burns & McDonnell for new single-terminal airport

The committee tasked with choosing a team to build and finance a new single terminal at Kansas City International Airport reached its decision Wednesday and recommended the team led by Edgemoor Infrastructure & Real Estate for the $1 billion project.
“We have gone through our due diligence and we think we have recommended a project that will allow a new terminal at KCI to go forward, hopefully with a vote of approval in November, but something that all of our citizens can be proud of once it’s completed,” City Manager Troy Schulte said of the complex and challenging process to choose the best proposal for what will be one of the biggest public works projects in the city’s history.
The recommendation still must go to the city council for approval.
The committee made its comments after a special closed session with the city council. That meeting was attended by most city council members but not Mayor Sly James. Mayoral staffers said James was at another long-scheduled meeting with the Missouri Department of Transportation to discuss the future of the Buck O’Neil (Broadway) Bridge.

Wednesday’s announcement is just the latest chapter in a tumultuous airport story that is still far from over. The committee members said they wanted to get reasonable buy-in from the city council.




And the public still has the final say on any airport improvements, with an election currently scheduled Nov. 7. The city intends to ask if voters support replacing the existing horseshoe terminals with a new single terminal at KCI, using airport revenues but no general fund taxpayer dollars.
The path to picking a winning proposal to do that airport work has been filled with setbacks, acrimony and allegations of conflicts of interest and favoritism.

It began in March, when Kansas City-based Burns & McDonnell approached the mayor and city manager about a sole source contract to build and finance what is expected to be a $1 billion project. After that plan became public in May, some council members and others raised objections to the appearance of a backroom deal. The city then opted instead to open up the process to competitive proposals
Four teams of engineering, construction and financing companies submitted proposals to build and finance the new terminal. They were teams led by AECOM; Burns & McDonnell; Edgemoor Infrastructure & Real Estate; and Jones Lang Lasalle. Final submittals were due Aug. 10 and the committee met with the presenters on Aug. 14.
After the committee sought additional clarification on the proposals, an AECOM representative publicly complained that the city was “moving the goalposts” and allowing Burns & McDonnell to change its financing proposal.


That was followed by an allegation that City Councilwoman Jolie Justus, who sits on the selection committee, had a conflict of interest because her law firm once represented Burns & McDonnell in litigation over the Branson Airport that concluded in 2016. Kansas City’s municipal ethics commission quickly concluded there was no conflict of interest, because Justus is not a partner in the firm and derived no personal or financial gain from that legal work.
Then on Monday, Burns & McDonnell alleged a conflict of interest against attorney Charles Renner, who has been advising the airport selection committee and the city council, because Renner represented Edgemoor in a University of Kansas facilities project. Renner and the city attorney said there was no conflict of interest because that KU representation ended in May 2016.
On Tuesday, Burns & McDonnell argued that the whole selection process was so tainted that it should be halted and a new selection process begun.

The committee didn’t take that advice and met Wednesday morning, coming to a conclusion about noon.
__________________

AW|E90|ZSP|ZPP|2XA|NAV|HID| ///M | BMS |JB4 | VRSF



JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2017-09-06, 04:19 PM   #250
KUweatherman
Super Moderator
 
KUweatherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Olathe
Posts: 41,463
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 402
Thanks (Received): 363
Likes (Given): 4971
Likes (Received): 2124
Dislikes (Given): 123
Dislikes (Received): 174
Default

Wow. So it sounds like Burns and McDonnell is just pissed because they came up with this idea and didn't get picked. I did like the look of their proposal but this sounds so whiny of them.

Now. Let's see Edgemoor's proposal which still hasn't been seen publicly.
__________________
KUweatherman is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.13.37
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright (c) 1993-2012, KCSR.org