We need a new airport!!!

[KCPowercat]

Nothing is adding up though. The EA was supposed to be done in early October. It was "critical" to get the operating agreement signed in November.....this is either inexperience / ignorance from our city leaders (and developers) so they didn't now how long this stuff really takes...or there are just lying to us about it....someone needs to be held accountable.

[mykem]

Nothing is adding up though. The EA was supposed to be done in early October. It was "critical" to get the operating agreement signed in November.....this is either inexperience / ignorance from our city leaders (and developers) so they didn't now how long this stuff really takes...or there are just lying to us about it....someone needs to be held accountable.

I think it's a little bit of everything. Reassessment, is second guessing. Isn't this being assessed every day? This is an outrage!

[beautyfromashes]

Nothing is adding up though. The EA was supposed to be done in early October. It was "critical" to get the operating agreement signed in November.....this is either inexperience / ignorance from our city leaders (and developers) so they didn't now how long this stuff really takes...or there are just lying to us about it....someone needs to be held accountable.

Do we think there is a possibility they are slowing this down in hopes that tariffs get resolved? If steel prices take a huge drop after we buy tons of it, that would be unfortunate.

[dev49]

My understanding is that this is all to do with Allegient and Spirit trying to lessen the overall impact to them and they're using a critical piece of the new terminal (Baggage) as leverage. The top four carriers have signed off on the airport (Southwest, United, American, and Delta) which is more than the 66% usage we need to sign off on the bonds. Sly prefers that we get all airlines to sign onto the agreement to get better rates on the bonds, but it is not required. Since the environmental evaluation is still ongoing, it seems like a good time to have everyone come back to the table and work this all out. I think the problem here is that the media is making this out to be a bigger deal than it really needs to be.

But are we really sure the big 4 signed off on it? We have been told they have, but we also were told everyone signed off on it, and they haven’t. We know they mostly support it by their letters but if they really were good with it 100%, I don’t know if they would be revisiting the scope of it. With them not showing up to anything lately it is hard for me to just take the cities word for it after they already have misled us.

I just want them to get it right in the end. If it takes extra months/years then so be it. I don’t like how things have seemed to have been rushed thru and HAD to be done by certain dates. Which includes at times feeling like we have been misled just to try to move things along or ease concerns. Just be open and honest about it from the start.

[STLguy1]

KC STAR

Thursday’s debate was the latest in a long and difficult process to replace the three aging terminals at KCI that’s likely to drag into January or beyond.

Galen Beaufort, who testified on behalf of the city attorney’s office, said the money — $48.8 million — would bridge the gap between the time the council signs off on an ordinance approving the KCI rebuild and the time bonds can be issued to finance the rest of the project.

The money would allow crews to start on demolition at the existing airport terminal and prepare the construction site for the new $1.6 billion terminal soon following the council’s authorization.

Without the $48 million, Beaufort said Edgemoor won’t have money to continue working until the bonds are issued. Ultimately, the airlines are expected to pay the costs of the terminal overhaul.

James said the city could either borrow the money from itself or borrow externally, which would cost more, and noted the council has borrowed money from the airports in the past. He said that was not a “taxable event.”

Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politic ... rylink=cpy

This is getting to be a joke. Come on... moving $$$ from this city dept. to that city dept. to pay for the 48.8 million. But isn't that monies that were brought in by taxes?

In addition, the city will fund it from city funds to start a project that doesn't even have bonds backing it yet.

This is a mess IMO. We need a *real* board overseeing this project.

[KCPowercat]

They won't be borrowing city funds, only funds from the airport....probably a fine idea to borrow from the general fund but optics would have been horrible, not worth it.

[beautyfromashes]

I’m hearing Klein might be replaced.

[KCPowercat]

he needs to be. This is too much for him.

[normalthings]

They won't be borrowing city funds, only funds from the airport....probably a fine idea to borrow from the general fund but optics would have been horrible, not worth it.

Which would then be paid back by Airline funded bonds. Edgemoor isn’t going to keep working “at risk” if the city keeps pushing the project back and doesn’t pay them.

[STLguy1]

They won't be borrowing city funds, only funds from the airport....probably a fine idea to borrow from the general fund but optics would have been horrible, not worth it.

But that is just it. It is not written that way now. Per the article... next week Justus plans to present an amendment to say "only from the airport fund".

The article is a fairly long read. It also says that the city at this point cannot guarantee that the money would not be from the general fund ( at this time ).

This is so botched up and a mess.

[KCPowercat]

They won't be borrowing city funds, only funds from the airport....probably a fine idea to borrow from the general fund but optics would have been horrible, not worth it.

Which would then be paid back by Airline funded bonds. Edgemoor isn’t going to keep working “at risk” if the city keeps pushing the project back and doesn’t pay them.

Yup...there are other ways to get the money to bridge the gap. Bad idea that has be squashed

[KCPowercat]

They won't be borrowing city funds, only funds from the airport....probably a fine idea to borrow from the general fund but optics would have been horrible, not worth it.

But that is just it. It is not written that way now. Per the article... next week Justus plans to present an amendment to say "only from the airport fund".

The article is a fairly long read. It also says that the city at this point cannot guarantee that the money would not be from the general fund ( at this time ).

This is so botched up and a mess.

No it's not. "Only from airport fund" is pretty clearly saying money wouldn't be used even temporarily from the general fund. This is a pretty small thing, it would have just been bad optics that everybody would have jumped on if they did it the way sly was proposing. Bad idea that was rightly fixed quickly.

[STLguy1]

But that isn't the way the at article reads in the paper. Justus says that next week she is is going to draw up amendment to the monies and where they can be allotted from. That amendment then will be voted on.
Maybe I'm missing something, but that is what the article reads.

[KCPowercat]

Yes and it says that allotment will be only from the aviation department which is funded by airport revenues.

This isn't a big kurfufal you are attempting to make it into.

[STLguy1]

One again you attack me.

I am reading it completely different than you are then.

---

Next update from the press and city: Jan 10

Happy Holidays

[grovester]

"Attack"

[KCPowercat]

This is pretty clear

Now committee chairwoman Jolie Justus, who represents the city’s 4th District, plans to offer an amendment next week. She said she would amend the ordinance so that the funds would be borrowed only from the city’s aviation department, which is funded by airport revenues and not taxpayer dollars.

[dev49]

This is pretty clear

Now committee chairwoman Jolie Justus, who represents the city’s 4th District, plans to offer an amendment next week. She said she would amend the ordinance so that the funds would be borrowed only from the city’s aviation department, which is funded by airport revenues and not taxpayer dollars.

FWIW, I watched some of the meeting. The aviation department originally said they didn't have the funds to cover it so that is why they had to borrow from a different department (or from a bank). One of the committee members, a woman who I am not sure of her name, was not comfortable with it because then it would be paid for by general revenue. Her reasoning also included, what if we pay for this up front and then things fall thru and we don't get paid back for it. So then general funds would have paid for something they weren't supposed to pay for.

She also wasn't thrilled that the project would be paid by things other than the airlines (parking, concessions) and said it was misleading because they told the public the airlines were paying for it. Not sure I agree with her on that point, but that is a different argument.

The amendment may have come about after I quit listening. I don't remember them talking about it while I was listening. Not sure how the aviation department will cover it though since they said they didn't have the funds to do it.

[beautyfromashes]

But hey, we got a 'community improvement program'!!!!

[STLguy1]

KCPowercat wrote: ↑ They won't be borrowing city funds, only funds from the airport....probably a fine idea to borrow from the general fund but optics would have been horrible, not worth it.

wrong, not enough in aviation fund. Correct, on second part.

STLguy1 wrote: ↑ But that is just it. It is not written that way now. Per the article... next week Justus plans to present an amendment to say "only from the airport fund".

The article is a fairly long read. It also says that "the city at this point cannot guarantee that the money would not be from the general fund".

KCPowercat wrote: ↑ No it's not. "Only from airport fund" is pretty clearly saying money wouldn't be used even temporarily from the general fund. This is a pretty small thing, it would have just been bad optics that everybody would have jumped on if they did it the way sly was proposing. Bad idea that was rightly fixed quickly

No. wrong. Not fixed yet. and the article "is pretty clearly saying" (and I quote) "the city at this point cannot guarantee that the money would not be from the general fund". the article is "pretty clear".

KCPowercat wrote: ↑ This is pretty clear
Now committee chairwoman Jolie Justus, who represents the city’s 4th District, plans to offer an amendment next week. She said she would amend the ordinance so that the funds would be borrowed only from the city’s aviation department, which is funded by airport revenues and not taxpayer dollars.

<response to STLguy1> This isn't a big kurfufal you are attempting to make it into.

um... once again, didn't my post before this post say the same thing? ...and do you mean kerfuffle?

Dev49 wrote ↑ FWIW, I watched some of the meeting. The aviation department originally said they didn't have the funds to cover it so that is why they had to borrow from a different department (or from a bank). One of the committee members, a woman who I am not sure of her name, was not comfortable with it because then it would be paid for by general revenue. Her reasoning also included, what if we pay for this up front and then things fall thru and we don't get paid back for it. So then general funds would have paid for something they weren't supposed to pay for.

Amen. You, the city council, committee and others get it! That's what the long article in the paper (KC Star) was pointing out/discussing the entire read.

If they steal from peter to pay paul in this situation (because the airport fund is not even close to enough to cover it) then they are "stealing" from the tax payers who voted and whom were told that zero tax dollars would be used for the new terminal. Not rocket science.

The only other way to "legally" make up the entire amount (which would still be in the range of 26-27 million even after the aviation revenue account funds were depleted -according to the meeting) would be to get a loan from a bank. That loan (and interest) would be on the city and taxpayers head. So the decision of yes or no on the funds is still being worked out....

and hopefully quickly, correctly, accountable and in the best interest of KC taxpayers and our region. I am sure/glad there will be amendments made to where the money comes from (good) but as the article reads (as well) done without red flags, disparities and discrepancies. A"kerfuffle" not made up by me. Rather an "issue" that needs to be done correctly.

Now we will see what they will do and wait on the airlines to figure out their distribution of funding in order to proceed.