• Home
  • About me: Jim Fitzpatrick
  • Contact

JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« David Jungerman wises up and hires an attorney to represent him in an attempted burglary case
The case of the missing mugshot »

It’s time to give gold medals to some of those who helped propel Kansas City a huge step closer to a new KCI

February 9, 2018 by jimmycsays

Thursday was a great day for Kansas City.

After years of hand wringing, steps forward and steps backward, we have a Memorandum of Understanding — 68 pages between the city and Edgemoor Infrastructure & Real Estate — to build a new, $1 billion terminal at KCI.

It may not be easy from here; there will probably be many difficult days ahead, in fact. But chances are now good we will have a new airport in the early 2020s.

I can’t wait. I’m 71 — will be 72 next month — and hope to God I’m here to see it.

Yesterday, after nearly two months of “double, double toil and trouble” (you can always count on The Bard), the council approved a new and improved M.O.U. on an 8-5 vote.

That’s hardly a mandate — just one tick above a bare majority — but good enough to move ahead.

I have no interest tonight in rehashing the battle or running down the people who voted “no.” (Suffice it to say, I will not support for mayor any of the “nay” voters on Thursday.) What I want to do is pay tribute to certain individuals and to my former employer, The Kansas City Star, for making this result possible.

But first, as I am constantly urging my friends at The Star to do, let’s enumerate the vote:

Yes: Mayor Sly James, Dan Fowler, Quinton Lucas, Jermaine Reed, Katheryn Shields, Jolie Justus, Alissia Canady and Kevin McManus.

No: Heather Hall, Teresa Loar, Lee Barnes, Scott Wagner and Scott Taylor.

**

Now, my list of heroes.

The Kansas City Star Editorial Board

I just don’t think this would have happened without the insistent prodding and holding-to-account that editorial page editor Colleen McCain Nelson and her fellow editorial writers engaged in. (Dave Helling deserves a lot of credit, too; he has written the vast majority of airport editorials.)

It was a remarkable demonstration of consistent and relentless urging of the council to do right by the citizens. (I wish I could say I was equally consistent, but a couple of times I let developments unsettle me and called for halting the process and starting over. For that, I deserve to be called “Shaky JimmyC.”)

The Star’s shining moment came the afternoon of Dec. 14, just hours after the council’s jaw-dropping 9-4 vote to dump Edgemoor. In an editorial that was updated the next morning, The Star said:

“In an astonishing display of arrogance, nine members of the Kansas City Council betrayed voters and rejected a negotiated memorandum of understanding with Edgemoor Infrastructure, the company picked to develop a terminal at Kansas City International Airport. The decision — cooked up out of the public’s eye — once again injected chaos into the airport terminal project.”

You could feel the fury behind those words. I loved the passion. It went on to slap the council up side the face and warned it, in so many words, to shape up.

“Kansas City voters should be furious about the council’s ham-handed interference with the project. Less than six weeks ago, voters overwhelmingly endorsed construction of a new $1 billion terminal at KCI — a remarkable show of faith in their elected leaders.

“Those voters knew Edgemoor had been selected in a relatively open procurement process. Now nine council members have betrayed that faith, in a stunning bait-and-switch. It confirms every claim of distrust in local government.”

I think that editorial rattled and embarrassed several council members, and, indeed, the council did shape up.

Mayor Sly James

The mayor gets a lot of criticism for being headstrong and egotistical, but, by God, people love this guy because he exhibits incredible strength, and he’s usually right.

After getting the airport project off dead center with his support of a “sole-source” contract with Burns & McDonnell, Sly had the guts to shift gears after the project was opened to other contractors. He saw that the city would be getting a raw deal with Burns and Mac (a proposal from bidder AECOM came in at $400 million less than Burns and Mac’s, and Edgemoor’s proposal came in at a stunning $776 million less. Faced with the facts, Sly knew it was Burns and Mac that had to be dumped, not Edgemoor.

At yesterday’s council meeting, before the vote, he had harsh words for AECOM and its recently cooked-up partnership with Burns and Mac.

“Heck, before Edgemoor was selected, Burns & McDonnell and AECOM privately and publicly talked about each other as if they were fighting in a schoolyard. After they were both rejected, however, they formed a convenient partnership and now Edgemoor is under attack.”

Way to go, Sly. I will vote for you for whatever you run for next.

Councilman Kevin McManus

I live in the 6th Council District, which is represented by McManus (in district) and Scott Taylor (at large).

McManus

Both were strongly behind Burns and Mac, which has its headquarters in the 6th District, and both voted to dump Edgemoor on Dec. 14. But of the two, only McManus had the courage to do what was right and turn against Burns and Mac in the wake of its proposal — a proposal so greedy that my late, great friend Steve Glorioso said “would have made Tom Pendergast blush.”

McManus didn’t make any friends at Burns and Mac, but I think with his show of integrity yesterday he positioned himself for bigger things down the road.

Councilwoman Alissia Canady

Canady

Along with Councilman Lee Barnes, (at large), Canady represents the 5th District. She joined him — the most strident Edgemoor opponent — in the infamous Dec. 14 vote. Like McManus in the 6th, however, she came around to see the folly of the at-large member’s position.

Thank you, Councilwoman Canady.

Charles Renner  

Here’s a man who worked tirelessly behind the scenes, whose expert guidance and familiarity with public-private partnerships helped keep the council on the right path.

Renner

Renner is a partner with the Kansas City-based law firm Husch Blackwell, which, along with the Boston-based WilmerHale, has been paid more than $1 million to advise the council on the new-terminal process.

That’s a ton of money, for sure, but after the Dec. 14 debacle, members of the council’s Finance & Governance Committee said that in the context of a $1 billion project, the amount was not out of line. So true.

Renner got his undergraduate and law degrees from UMKC. He earned a B.A. in political science in 1997 and received his law degree three years later.

Thank you, Charles — and your fellow legal beagles, who kept fine tuning and explaining this deal right up to yesterday afternoon.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

6 Responses

  1. on February 12, 2018 at 9:13 am Mark Peavy

    “Edgemoor’s proposal came in at a stunning $776 million less.”

    If you click on the link below, you will read a Tweet where the KC City Manager wrote: “The statement by the @KCStar that the #BetterKCI procurement process saved $766 million is patently false.” In response, Steve Vockrodt wrote that he will send the KC City Manager the document containing the $776M, which Vockrodt says was “derived from work product by city’s hired legal staff.”

    It sure would be nice if the public could see the document which supports the $776M figure. Because, at this point, it sure looks like there is only one of two explanations for this disagreement (neither of which is comforting):

    1) The KC City Manager was unaware of a significant document prepared by his own staff and outside lawyers, or
    2) A council member and the Star are fundamentally misinterpreting a document prepared by city staff and outside lawyers.

    The statement by the @KCStar that the #BetterKCI procurement process saved $766 million is patently false. The only savings identified is the $90 million from debt-only financing offered by @KCIEdgemoor which is principle reason why they were selected.

    — KC City Manager (@KCMOManager) February 11, 2018


    • on February 12, 2018 at 4:40 pm Brian

      Here is what the KCBJ wrote:
      The $776 million in savings that Canady referred to is the difference between Edgemoor’s current proposal and the $2.982 billion total cost ($85.2 million x 35 years) called for in the eventually abandoned MOU associated with Burns & McDonnell’s controversial no-bid proposal.


      • on February 12, 2018 at 5:02 pm Mark Peavy

        Vockrodt goes into a lot more detail on his Twitter account. As he notes, “The $776 million figure is obviously at one end of the spectrum.” That’s putting it mildly. $90M to $776 is an extremely broad spectrum.

        https://twitter.com/st_vockrodt?lang=en


  2. on February 12, 2018 at 9:50 am jimmycsays

    Like The Star, I was relying on numbers worked up by Husch Blackwell.

    AECOM’s proposal, including construction costs, debt and profit, came it at more than $400 million less than Burns and Mac’s sole source proposal. (Its proposal totaled nearly $3 billion over 35 years, including construction costs, debt and profit.)

    Husch’s numbers show Edgemoor’s proposal costing about $776 million (maybe the number is $766 million) less than Burns and Mac’s over 35 years.

    You have to remember that City Manager Troy Schulte was on board with Burns and Mac’s sole-source proposal at the outset, along with Sly James, Jolie Justus and Scott Wagner. He might be trying to cover Burns and Mac’s flanks now, but I notice he hasn’t demanded a correction from The Star…Just says it’s wrong.

    It’s numbers…You can bend ’em a lot of ways.


    • on February 12, 2018 at 4:11 pm Mark Peavy

      The Tweets Vockrodt has posted in the last few minutes are too massive to easily summarize, but I’m sure you will find them interesting.

      https://twitter.com/st_vockrodt?lang=en


      • on February 12, 2018 at 4:40 pm jimmycsays

        Who knows what’s going to unfold going forward, with financing, constructions costs, etc., but of the three proposals, Edgemoor appears to have put forward the most economical model, by quite a distance.

        Nevertheless, it all goes back to the botched process. As Vockrodt and Turque quoted Scott Wagner the other day:

        “That beginning has kind of poisoned this to some degree so that there’s always a level of distrust, there’s always a level of trying to figure out what’s really going on. I think that continues to play out.”

        There’s no “apples to apples” at this stage.



Comments are closed.

  • Pages

    • About me: Jim Fitzpatrick
    • Contact
  • Archives

    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • October 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 563 other subscribers

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


  • Follow Following
    • JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC
    • Join 563 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: