A step closer to a new KCI terminal? (Kansas City, North Kansas City: lofts, to buy)

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by shindig

Question hopefully somebody can answer. If no taxes are being increased to renovate or build a new terminal, then why does this have to go to a public vote? It sounds like most of the money will come from the airlines, parking fees and probably federal and state support. Also, what would be the question on the ballot? Would it be a choice of renovation or build new, or just the approval of a bond issuance? It sounds like, to me at least, that there is no option C, like do nothing. Something will be done, right? I don't understand why the City can't just issue the bonds without a vote. If the vote is to only build new, then it will go down in flames. The City has to know this.

In Missouri, anytime a municipality issues debt, it must go to a public vote.

It's really too bad in this case because most people don't have enough information, nor are they educated enough on the topic to really be making such a decision. So it becomes an emotional vote for voters. The airport has an uphill battle. I have a feeling the language of the ballet question for the bonds will have to be very vague and not mention a new terminal or KC will be stuck with their aging airport till is falls down and the voters don't have a choice anymore.

This should be up to the city, aviation department, airlines and FAA. The professionals that do this stuff for a living and know what is needed, why it's needed and how to cost effectively implement the changes. If you leave the future of a city in the hands of your basic voters, your city will go to hell pretty quickly. You need strong leadership backed up by professionals to do a project like KCI and I think KC has done that, although they still have one or two council members that are not a lot smarter than the average voter when it comes to civic issue like this. Luckily the Mayor get it.

[Rivertowntalk]

The financing would likely be through a public bond issue, possibly tax free bonds. So, the bill is on the back of the taxpayers. Could be federal grant money involved, but that is indirect through taxes. The airline industry has had a long history of transportation subsidies to keep it going. Amtrak is another transportation mode that depends on federal transportation subsidies, much more than the airline industry.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by Rivertowntalk

The financing would likely be through a public bond issue, possibly tax free bonds. So, the bill is on the back of the taxpayers. Could be federal grant money involved, but that is indirect through taxes. The airline industry has had a long history of transportation subsidies to keep it going. Amtrak is another transportation mode that depends on federal transportation subsidies, much more than the airline industry.

The bonds will be paid back via airline fees and other revenue the airport itself generates. No taxes involved.

Even if the aviation department gets federal money from the FAA, that money is not from taxes. It's from airline fees generating all throughout the country that are thrown into an airport improvement fund and then dispersed back to airports to do large projects like this. That money has mostly dried up since sequestration. KC missed the boat on the FAA airport money just like it missed the boat at transit money. Some other city got it instead.

So KCI's new terminal will likely be built with nearly all locally raised revenue from the airport itself such as landing fees, ticket fees and parking/terminal concessions revenue. KCI is a self sustaining entity winch is why it's absurd that they have to go through this with the public rather than just doing what they need to do in order to grow and prosper as an airport.

[lovekcmo]

From what I understand, Delta and Southwest are the only two airlines in Terminal B, why doesn't the city/KCI put Delta in Terminal A and let Southwest have all of Terminal B?

[Rivertowntalk]

User fees are are similar to taxes. A concern would be that the fees would drive up the direct costs to airlines and consumers and indirectly throughout the city. Higher airline fees could potentially reduce airline services to the city. Of course, if the bonds are defaulted on, the bond holders would lose through a restructuring.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by Rivertowntalk

User fees are are similar to taxes. A concern would be that the fees would drive up the direct costs to airlines and consumers and indirectly throughout the city. Higher airline fees could potentially reduce airline services to the city. Of course, if the bonds are defaulted on, the bond holders would lose through a restructuring.

Which is why the airport is working very closely with the airlines to come up with a plan that will work. Southwest wants to grow in KC. They know how much the flying public can absorb via ticket fees. KCI fees are pretty low right now. Fee's don't really have a direct impact on how much it cost to fly out of a city. Fares out of KCI are actually rising do to lack of flights/competition.

There are examples of airports getting themselves into a mess, Sacramento for example. But I don't think the airlines were nearly as involved in Sacramento as they are with Kansas City. Southwest had already stated that KCI needs a new terminal, but they want the city to be very careful with how much they spend and how much they tack onto tickets via surcharges. A billion dollars for a whole new terminal for an airport the size of KCI is not really that much. It's a lot of money, but not really in airport terminal terms. KC could easily spend 2 billion on a new terminal. Planners are being pretty conservative with designs with KCI's new terminal and that is driven by the airlines to make sure that KCI remains (or becomes) a profitable airport for them as well as a modern terminal for users.

[Ztonyg]

Originally Posted by kcmo

The bonds will be paid back via airline fees and other revenue the airport itself generates. No taxes involved.

Even if the aviation department gets federal money from the FAA, that money is not from taxes. It's from airline fees generating all throughout the country that are thrown into an airport improvement fund and then dispersed back to airports to do large projects like this. That money has mostly dried up since sequestration. KC missed the boat on the FAA airport money just like it missed the boat at transit money. Some other city got it instead.

So KCI's new terminal will likely be built with nearly all locally raised revenue from the airport itself such as landing fees, ticket fees and parking/terminal concessions revenue. KCI is a self sustaining entity winch is why it's absurd that they have to go through this with the public rather than just doing what they need to do in order to grow and prosper as an airport.

Why does KCI have to go through this mess?

I don't recall other public votes for other airport expansion/renovation proposals. PHX is undergoing a massive expansion/renovation project that is in the range of what we're talking about with KCI and there was not much public vote (nor really any public outcry).

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by Ztonyg

Why does KCI have to go through this mess?

I don't recall other public votes for other airport expansion/renovation proposals. PHX is undergoing a massive expansion/renovation project that is in the range of what we're talking about with KCI and there was not much public vote (nor really any public outcry).

State law. Even if there was not state law, people in KC are so anti-change, anti-development and just flat out CHEAP, that I'm sure they would have all kinds of petition driven initiatives that would drag out the process of upgrading the airport for many years, if not decades.

BWI and DCA are constantly doing the same thing as PHX, always improving, expanding etc and they don't have to ask the resident aviation experts that fly to DFW once a year if it's okay to spend money the airport generates to improve the airport.

Like you said, nobody cares here. People have other things to do than sign petitions, and cry about how their airport may change and somehow ruin their quality of life. Everything they do to the airports here makes them better and allows for more flights etc.

I mean is life so simple in Kansas City that people are obsessed with not modifying their walk to an airport terminal gate? In any other major city....NOBODY CARES and are just happy when they show up for a flight and the airport has been improved. KC in many ways is depressing, but quite comical.

[adebord]

Kansas City really screwed it'self in the 50's and 60's when the city agreed to move everything to the suburbs. Stadiums, airport etc.. It drained the tax base and made the city irrelevant.

If the city were to extend runway 03/21 out to Burlington Street at MKC, put a new, simple terminal down there and run the streetcar across the river, we would be in GREAT shape.

There isn't a single scheduled flight to KC in.. forever that couldn't use those runways. 03/21 already has a precision approach. 19 has a precision approach. We aren't going to be getting widebody or transatlantic service ever. There isn't enough international O&D traffic to support it.

The more money we waste at MCI is just more money and power bled out of the city into the suburbs.

[lovekcmo]

Originally Posted by adebord

Kansas City really screwed it'self in the 50's and 60's when the city agreed to move everything to the suburbs. Stadiums, airport etc.. It drained the tax base and made the city irrelevant.

If the city were to extend runway 03/21 out to Burlington Street at MKC, put a new, simple terminal down there and run the streetcar across the river, we would be in GREAT shape.

There isn't a single scheduled flight to KC in.. forever that couldn't use those runways. 03/21 already has a precision approach. 19 has a precision approach. We aren't going to be getting widebody or transatlantic service ever. There isn't enough international O&D traffic to support it.

The more money we waste at MCI is just more money and power bled out of the city into the suburbs.

This is so true. There's no more TWA with it's Admin Center and Overhaul Base up there, the reason KCI was built where it is and it's design. Bring the main airport back downtown and be done with MCI/KCI, it's a waste and drain on the city. So Kansas City voters will be the one voting on what to do when it's used by the whole metro area, more people probably from Johnson County than Jackson county probably use it but the educated people who actually use the airport won't be deciding on what to do? Kansas City so screwed up by annexing the northland and building the stadiums and airport where they ended up.