It’s a go!
We’ll have an airport election on Nov. 7, and things are looking — if not up, up and away — at least up.
After a torturous, four-month process that has tested everyone’s patience and trust in City Hall, the City Council voted 10-2 this afternoon to enter into a terminal-construction contract with Edgemoor of Bethesda, MD.
As you regular readers know, I’ve called at times for dumping the process and starting all over again in a couple of years — next time putting the horse (design) before the cart (construction contract).
Nevertheless, it appears the Council made the right choice. One of the four competing firms, Jones Lange LaSalle, was never seriously in the hunt. Two others, AECOM and Burns & McDonnell, wore out their welcome by being whiny (AECOM) and avaricious (Burns and Mac).
**
Here’s how the council vote went. (You probably won’t get the full rundown in The Star, and it’s important.)
Yes:
Mayor Sly James
Heather Hall
Dan Fowler
Quinton Lucas
Jermaine Reed
Katheryn Shields
Jolie Justus
Alissia Canaday
Kevin McManus
Teresa Loar
No:
Lee Barnes Jr.
Scott Taylor
Absent:
Scott Wagner
**
Here are my observations on some of those votes:
:: For all the criticism Sly James has come under in this blog and elsewhere for supporting Burns and Mac’s flagrant push for a no-bid contract, he made the correct call in the end, getting off the Burns and Mac bandwagon and switching to Edgemoor. As I reported last night, he told me and Mary O’Halloran at Steve Glorioso’s memorial service yesterday he thought there would be nine votes for Edgemoor today. His forecast was pretty much on target.
:: My old friend (although I backed her opponent Jim Glover in the 2015 election) Katheryn Shields was very instrumental in redirecting the process away from Burns and Mac and opening the project up to other competitors. Her deep governmental experience (an earlier stint on the Council, plus two terms as Jackson County executive) was pivotal. Where James’ bold move cowed at least two council members (Wagner and Justus), Shields was one of several who did not flinch.
:: I am proud of Teresa Loar for voting yes, even though she probably still doesn’t believe we need a new airport. She saw the scales tipping strongly in favor of selecting Edgemoor, and she went along. Like Shields, she, too, had an earlier stint on the council, and I feel sure her experience was a factor in her final decision.
:: Lee Barnes Jr. is a problematic council member because he is heavily influenced by a longtime adviser (not going to name him) whose political instincts are not very good.
:: I really like Scott Taylor, 6th District at-large councilman, who is running for mayor. (Disclosure: A few months ago, I contributed $250 to his campaign.) He was in a tough spot here. Burns and Mac built its big, new headquarters right in the middle of his district, at the intersection of Wornall and Ward Parkway. I’m sure he felt a deep loyalty to Burns and Mac, and I can’t blame him for that. It’s notable, though, that Kevin McManus, in-district councilman from the 6th, left the Burns and Mac fold and went over to Edgemoor. Congratulations to Kevin; that took some guts.
:: Where was Scott Wagner? An early supporter of Burns and Mac, along with James and Justus, he was a no-show today. I hope he didn’t “take a walk,” as they say when an elected official ducks a big vote.
**
All in all, the council deserves a tremendous amount of credit for what it did today. The process was ugly, but now that the sausage is made, it looks a lot better. On Nov. 7, let’s chow down. We need a new airport.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Just curious: have city officials (or the Star, for that matter) ever provided a clear explanation as to why a public financing option was rejected (other than the contention that voters perceived public financing to be riskier)?
No, just what you said, Mark — the contention that voters felt more comfortable with private companies providing the financing. I think polls may have reflected that, but I’m not sure…Issuing Aviation Department revenue bonds would be a cheaper way to go because, as you know, the city can issue tax-free revenue bonds at interest rates of 1 to 2 percent lower than private lenders would get. And general city revenue would not be at risk; only airport revenue could be used to pay off the bonds.
“1 to 2 percent lower than private lenders would get” is a significant difference, yet no explicit final debate and vote on public vs. private financing seems to have occurred (at least not in a way that either you or I was able to detect).
My opinion of this whole process remains unchanged, i.e., it was a fiasco. I have little confidence that Edgemoor’s bid was really any better than the others. But, who knows? I may end up voting “yes” in November anyway. I’m not sure a do-over would produce any better result.
Based on today’s editorial in the Star, it looks like their assessment matches mine: “The push toward a new single-terminal at the airport turned into a fiasco, even with Thursday’s endorsement of Maryland-based Edgemoor Infrastructure and Real Estate as the developer of the $1 billion project.”
I will vote in favor of this but, mark my word, it won’t pass. This town has its share of wealthy and reactionary figures and some of them will bankroll a campaign with enough distortion and innuendo to confuse voters and convince them that the three-terminal system is just fine. I think the yes votes will prevail south of the river, but the Northland will resoundingly reject it.
As a resident of Platte County portion of KC, I’d be very surprised if it did not pass in Platte County. It will be easy to persuade those near the airport will gain the greatest benefit and that is Platte County.
Mike, I’m interested why you think this.
Gayle, the reasons why I think voters will reject this:
1) I covered KCI for The Star from 1999 to 2008. I broke the story about the Aviation Department considering a single terminal airport in July of 2007. The reaction I got from readers was overwhelmingly against the idea. The reasons the Aviation Department gave for getting rid of the three terminals included the expense, particularly having to have multiple security checkpoints and three separate HVAC systems, and the need for better concessions and retail shops. It’s hard to have a successful shop at KCI when only a portion of the traveling public will be using it. Those reasons were very legitimate BUT they did not _ and still do not_ resonate with a lot of people who only care about being a hot, skip and a jump from their car to their gate.
2) I think that this issue is a microcosm of the disconnect that we see everywhere between educated and informed people and the so-called populists who are reflexively distrustful of anything that educated and enlightened people advocate.
3) Fitz, correct me if I am wrong on this but I’m pretty sure that the people against the single-terminal system have a powerful politician on their side in Sam Graves and he has never been on the losing side of an election. These aginners will not hesitate to hire Graves’ campaign gurus to run a nasty, expensive and highly negative campaign. And let’s face it, negative campaigns get the job done.
4) I’m a flat-out pessimist who has little faith in voters doing the right thing. My forecasts are based more on gut feelings than rationale. But that gut feeling of mine told me a year ago that Donald Trump was going to win the presidential election.
Believe me, I hope that I am wrong. I think a new airport would be good. After all, for people who are visiting Kansas City, the airport is the first thing they are going to see. The airport they are flying into now is not a bustling place. Frankly, it’s depressing. I really think a single terminal could change that.
Thank you, Mike. Frankly, I don’t know how I’d vote. If it’s a “no,” will be interesting to see what happens next.
I was in southern Colorado over the weekend and didn’t have access to the Internet…For the record, a good friend, Bob Mayer, told me Scott Wagner was in China on Thursday, when the council voted on the Edgemoor proposal.