I joined about 100 people today at a City Council business session that focused on Burns & McDonnell’s recently unveiled proposal to build a new terminal at Kansas City International Airport and to assume financial responsibility for the job, seemingly relieving the city of risk.
Along with two other Burns and Mac officials, C.E.O. Ray Kowalik made an energetic presentation. Kowalik promised to deliver the city “a convenient, modern terminal with more flight options.” And it would be built “with local labor using local contractors.”
Burns and Mac wants the council to approve a 12-page memorandum of understanding, which, if passed, would effectively bind the city to accept Burns and Mac’s proposal to build a new terminal for an as-yet-to-be-determined “guaranteed maximum price.”
Jolie Justus
At a council legislative session following the business session, Mayor Sly James and Councilwoman Jolie Justus introduced an ordinance that would approve the memorandum. Burns and Mac wants the council to act by Thursday, June 15, in order to prepare a set of “definitive agreements” that Kansas City voters would decide on in November.
Under the memorandum, the city would retain ownership of the airport. But for a term of 30 to 35 years, Burns and Mac, through a recently created development firm called Terminal Developer LLC, would lease the new-terminal construction area from the city. The memorandum calls for “approximately $85.2 million a year” in airport revenue (including airline landing fees and gate rentals) to go toward paying off whatever debt Burns and Mac incurred to build the new terminal.
…I am convinced Burns and Mac has good intentions in this deal, and no doubt it is a great company. I am proud they are in Kansas City, and you only have to look at their magnificent new headquarters — which they designed and built — at the juncture of Ward Parkway and Wornall to see they are capable of executing a big job. In addition, they are one of the top airport design and construction firms in the country.
Still, this deal give me the heebie-jeebies. Here are some of the big, unanswered questions I have:
:: How much of a voice would the public, or even the city, have in design of the terminal? The design is going to be every bit as critical as construction itself.
:: How much money would Burns and Mac stand to make? If $85.2 million a year (a staggering amount) would be going toward retiring the debt and $65 million, let’s say, is needed to retire the debt, does Burns and Mac keep the difference?
:: By ceding control to Burns and Mac, what assurance would the city have that the work was being done to specifications and that shortcuts weren’t being taken?
:: And what if, at the end, the terminal did not meet the city’s expectations or Burns and Mac’s early representations?
To help answer some of those questions, the City Council voted 11-2 at its legislative session today to spend up to $475,000 to hire two law firms to help the city review and negotiate a possible deal.
That was a very smart move. It was clear at the business session that several council members were still trying to get their arms around even some of the basic elements of the memorandum.
Only two council members — Mayor Pro Tem Scott Wagner and 6th District at-large Councilman Scott Taylor voted against hiring outside legal counsel. It appears to me Wagner and Taylor are already committed to the Burns and Mac deal and don’t think the expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees is warranted or necessary.
It’s going to take seven council votes — a majority — to pass the ordinance. Early on, here is how the council vote is shaping up…
I think at least three other council members — a total of five at this point — are solidly behind the ordinance.
Besides Wagner and Taylor, Mayor James is unequivocally for it. It’s his baby, and a key element of his two-term legacy is at stake.
As I said above, Jolie Justus, chairperson of the council’s Aviation Committee, is a co-sponsor of the ordinance, so her vote is a given.
Councilman Kevin McManus, who, like Taylor, lives in the 6th Council District, where Burns and Mac has its headquarters, also is squarely behind it.
(Personal disclosure: I know Taylor and McManus and admire them greatly. In recent months, I helped lead a drive to raise city and private dollars to help restore the Meyer Circle Sea Horse Fountain, and Taylor and McManus approved $287,000 in capital improvements funds to help with the job. My Romanelli West neighborhood is very grateful for their assistance and support.)
It was hard to tell, from today’s comments, where many of the other council members stood.
I think there are at least two solid “no” voters — Teresa Loar and Heather Hall, both of whom live north of the river (not that that has anything in particular to do with their position).
I would not be surprised to see Katheryn Shields vote no. Outside the Council Chamber, she told me she her biggest reservation was that the city could borrow the money for about 3.5 percent, where Burns and Mac’s cost would be 5 percent or more.
Councilman Jermaine Reed sounded like a probable “no” vote. He called the memorandum of understanding “too vague” and “a non-starter.”
Like Reed, Councilman Lee Barnes Jr. expressed concern about the proponents’ attempt to get the council to quickly sign off on the memorandum of understanding.
Councilwoman Alissia Canady indicated she would be demanding a very high level of contract participation among minority- and women-owned businesses.
Councilman Dan Fowler said he liked the fact that, under the Burns and Mac deal, the city would incur no debt and there would be “no tax burden to our residents.”
One of the most animated council members was Quinton Lucas, who asked several pointed questions, including who would control the revenue flow — the city or the developer. The tentative answer was the city, but I think that remains to be seen. Before asking any questions, however, Lucas opened with these words, “I love the project!”
…When you think about it, that’s not definitive. Sure, he likes the project — most of us do — but does he like the Burns and Mac deal?
We’ll have to wait a few weeks to see how this deal unfolds and who, in the end, really likes it.
“The City Council voted 11-2 at its legislative session today to spend up to $475,000 to hire two law firms to help the city review and negotiate a possible deal.”
Actually, the City Council authorized more than $475,000. Here are Sections 4 and 5 of the Ordinance:
Section 4. That the City Attorney is authorized to expend an amount not to exceed $475,000 from the funds appropriated above to the account indicated above.
Section 5. That the City Attorney is directed that, upon exhaustion of funds identified in Section 4 of this ordinance, to negotiate and provide compensation based upon a fee structure commensurate with the legal skill and knowledge needed and compensated in the applicable markets for such specialized services.
http://kcmo.gov/lucas/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2017/05/TerminalModernizationProjectOrdinanceProposal.pdf
A blogger that actually goes to a meeting of a governmental body. How unusual.
A psychologist might diagnose it as compulsive behavior.
Actually, one doesn’t even need to attend these meetings in person. Most of them (including yesterday’s meeting) are on Ch. 2.
I have no doubt that most of the people involved in these deliberations have the best of intentions. I also have no doubt that, in the frenzied rush to get something/anything done, the level of misstatements and misunderstanding will get even worse. Example: the continued mischaracterization of the $475,000 as a cap on expenditures. It’s not (see Section 5 of the Ordinance).
Is it OK to eat popcorn and drink a Coke while watching?
It’s ok with me.
Hard drugs would probably be more appropriate for most of the meetings I’ve attended. Kudos for you masochism.