Re: Phase 2 streetcar to UMKC
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:05 am
Seems an extension would be built more quickly since builders would have more experience in construction from the starter line.
Possible, yes. Assured, no.KCPowercat wrote:Is that last funding thing....a possible thing?
Equity, not financing. Private equity is possible with both extensions.WoodDraw wrote:Do you mean private bond financing?
Interesting, I thought it was a misspeaking. I can see it north, but I struggle to see it south.DaveKCMO wrote:Equity, not financing. Private equity is possible with both extensions.WoodDraw wrote:Do you mean private bond financing?
If you do it as a DBOM -- design, build, operate and maintain -- with stable sources of revenue for 30 years, it's possible. That's just one of the scenarios to consider. Think about how the airport and convention center deals came together.WoodDraw wrote:Interesting, I thought it was a misspeaking. I can see it north, but I struggle to see it south.DaveKCMO wrote:Equity, not financing. Private equity is possible with both extensions.WoodDraw wrote:Do you mean private bond financing?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the airport is all debt I believe.DaveKCMO wrote:If you do it as a DBOM -- design, build, operate and maintain -- with stable sources of revenue for 30 years, it's possible. That's just one of the scenarios to consider. Think about how the airport and convention center deals came together.WoodDraw wrote:Interesting, I thought it was a misspeaking. I can see it north, but I struggle to see it south.DaveKCMO wrote:
Equity, not financing. Private equity is possible with both extensions.
FYI - The current operations contract is only five years.
I think you're correct, but it's an innovative delivery in KCMO. That was the point I was trying to make.WoodDraw wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the airport is all debt I believe.DaveKCMO wrote:If you do it as a DBOM -- design, build, operate and maintain -- with stable sources of revenue for 30 years, it's possible. That's just one of the scenarios to consider. Think about how the airport and convention center deals came together.WoodDraw wrote:
Interesting, I thought it was a misspeaking. I can see it north, but I struggle to see it south.
FYI - The current operations contract is only five years.
I'd be interested to see the proposal.
Point made, and that's awesome they're exploring it. P3 style deals might become more important, especially if we get less state and federal support.DaveKCMO wrote:I think you're correct, but it's an innovative delivery in KCMO. That was the point I was trying to make.WoodDraw wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the airport is all debt I believe.DaveKCMO wrote:
If you do it as a DBOM -- design, build, operate and maintain -- with stable sources of revenue for 30 years, it's possible. That's just one of the scenarios to consider. Think about how the airport and convention center deals came together.
FYI - The current operations contract is only five years.
I'd be interested to see the proposal.
We originally presented the option of private equity as well as debt. IIRC Airport Ownership elected to go with the 100% debt option.DaveKCMO wrote:I think you're correct, but it's an innovative delivery in KCMO. That was the point I was trying to make.WoodDraw wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the airport is all debt I believe.DaveKCMO wrote:
If you do it as a DBOM -- design, build, operate and maintain -- with stable sources of revenue for 30 years, it's possible. That's just one of the scenarios to consider. Think about how the airport and convention center deals came together.
FYI - The current operations contract is only five years.
I'd be interested to see the proposal.
I'm actually super interested in this now. This actually is making more sense than I gave it. I have so many questions.DaveKCMO wrote:If you do it as a DBOM -- design, build, operate and maintain -- with stable sources of revenue for 30 years, it's possible. That's just one of the scenarios to consider. Think about how the airport and convention center deals came together.WoodDraw wrote:Interesting, I thought it was a misspeaking. I can see it north, but I struggle to see it south.DaveKCMO wrote:
Equity, not financing. Private equity is possible with both extensions.
FYI - The current operations and maintenance contract is only five years.
It's unlikely we would change our governance model to make it work:tower wrote:Couldn't a DBOM contact lead to a situation like Cincinnati's with too many hands in the pot?
Different sources of revenuebeautyfromashes wrote:If you don’t get federal funds and borrow for the initial construction, what would you borrow against?
This wouldn't work. The tax is set with a fixed term. The city can't certify revenue based on voter renewal that may not happen and would probably have problems selling the bonds if the term is way longer. than normal.beautyfromashes wrote:Wouldn’t this require longer payment of tax revenues within the district?
Not exactly. Two things must happen and I'll just quote the ballot languagebeautyfromashes wrote:Plus, wasn’t the funding mechanism set up to only collect funds if matching federal funds were in place?
It doesn't matter where the funds come from as long as there's enough.The revenue sources of the District shall not be collected until (a) the Starter Line District is abolished, terminated or dissolved, or merged with or into the District, or its revenue sources reduced to zero by action of the Board of Directors of the Starter Line District or otherwise, in accordance with then applicable law, and (b) the Board of Directors of the District determines that there are sufficient funds to be derived from sources other than revenue of the District in order to make the construction of a substantial portion of the Project financially viable when aggregated with revenue of the District.