KCRag Forum

I know, there will be public oversight, my main concern is how much of a mark-up there will be to cover private construction loan interest and general conditions. And by mark-up, I mean 'less money to spend on nice stuff.'

Burns and Mac is not going to cut corners in this. This will be their showcase design.

I say it will pass easily for multiple reasons. I agree it probably would have passed anyways. Now you have some addition benefit of it being fast and the "no city bonds" people. Between June and November many additional things will occur....burns will come out with a sexy rendering. Convenience factors will be asked and answered properly....and I wouldn't be surprised if Southwest and another airline like Alaska came out and provided some sort of carrot

I really think this process should be open. B&M is an incredibly successful and talented engineering firm, and I don't doubt their expertise on the airside of the project, but I'm having difficultly finding any 'terminal design' images in their portfolio. We have some of the best designers in the world right here in KC, and inevitably B&M will partner with one of them, I'm sure of it, if they haven't already. But that is what would happen if this were a bond issued project, or a traditional P3. Our city just went out and hired a developer in a closed process. Alarm bells!

And by alarm bells I mean legal exposure for the city. It would be negative, indeed, if this project were held up by lawsuits from other developers who didn't get a chance to compete for the project.

Anybody else is free to approach the city and offer this deal.

KCPowercat wrote:Anybody else is free to approach the city and offer this deal.

Actually, they are not, as the city is preparing to sign the MOU.

City officials put out informal requests for airport solutions for many months. B&M had the creativity to work out a good solution, the initiative to push the proposal to the city and has the experience of being a top 3 airport developer in the United States. Those three characteristics along with them being homegrown is enough for me. Shave the two years and get it done.

voltopt wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:Anybody else is free to approach the city and offer this deal.

Actually, they are not, as the city is preparing to sign the MOU.

In June. This was floated publicly by the mayor last year and I'm sure more forcefully privately to these firms.

Time is money and to get this voted on by November to get this process moving is one need for the speed....lose the time advantage this doesn't becomes as sensible to do.

Floated, but not formally proposed. There is a difference!

Agreed...this isn't a normal deal. I think we all get that. I think the city getting outside council is a prudent step.

Given it's not the city asking for bids in return for city backed money....I still am not sure what "bids" everybody expects here? Burns and mac have come in with an offer to private finance at the price the airlines have already agreed to...that is the transaction here.

KCPowercat wrote:Agreed...this isn't a normal deal. I think we all get that. I think the city getting outside council is a prudent step.

Given it's not the city asking for bids in return for city backed money....I still am not sure what "bids" everybody expects here? Burns and mac have come in with an offer to private finance at the price the airlines have already agreed to...that is the transaction here.

I am referring to an RFP, which would ellicit proposals from other developer/design teams, not bids. As of now there is one proposal that was discussed privately. If it were an open RFP process there would be competition, which is healthy and could lead to other innovations.

Healthy skepticism!

Sometimes you can lose a good deal in search for the absolute best deal....and end up with nothing.

I agree skepticism is good when looking at this deal.

voltopt wrote:I know, there will be public oversight, my main concern is how much of a mark-up there will be to cover private construction loan interest and general conditions. And by mark-up, I mean 'less money to spend on nice stuff.'

As I understand the process yes there would be a higher interest cost but that higher cost can be offset by a tighter design and build process with this proposal. A normal process would likely have an RFP for a design firm to start the process. And before the successful design firm signs the contract it could take 4 to 6 months to get to that point. Then, of course, you have the design period. And once that is completed and reviewed and redesigned it could then go out to bid for a general contractor. And again that could be a 4 to 6 month process before the general contractor signs the contract. Then you have the construction start-up process and then the construction period. Of course this does not even include the time period beforehand for the bonds to be approved and sold. So if one can knock off 18 to 24 months from beginning to end that is 18 to 24 months shorter period of paying interest costs before any revenue arrives from airport operations.

.

Number one international destination not served by KC is London. B&M and Cerner both have significant offices there. There are airlines paying attention to what happens here and if the terminal is built and can adequately support a larger twin aisle plane and customs, there will be a direct flight to the UK. It is my opinion that carrot will be dangled out there after the MOU is signed. I don't see the new terminal opening up a lot of possibilities within the continental US, but I DO see it having a great effect on our international service. We have businesses here that are growing leaps and bounds and they need an airport that gets their staff where they need them faster than sending through multiple airports.

I believe the city's campaign to sell this to the general public needs to involve the comparisons between old and new. I think most who don't want to get rid of KCI haven't flown out of it in the last decade. This won't be a huge terminal when compared to most of the hubs, but will be bigger and thus will have many more amenities that are severely lacking or are missing altogether today.

^ Might not open up many new domestic locations, but could provide conpetition for the ones we already have and lower fare costs. Would love some international locations. Paris or Rio would be awesome. Could also see direct flights to Hawaii once SW starts flying there.

.

4 international gates.