Fast forward a year and Vockrodt writes that the new Aviation Department director, Pat Klein, was unaware of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines on conducting an environmental assessment. He writes,

Klein said there had been an assumption that the city could put out solicitations for certain construction work before the FAA approved an environmental assessment in October, and then signing those contracts shortly afterward.

“What we’ve been told initially by the FAA is they don’t think that’s a smart idea,” Klein said. “They think we should hold, so we’re in discussions with them to do that. That’s a three-, four-, five-month lag on our schedule, which could be the difference between summer or winter of 2022.”

Now we learn that even before construction has begun, the project’s opening is being delayed 11 months to October 2022 and will cost much more than originally planned. Delays and increased costs such as these are not surprising for such large projects. After all, the Aviation Department itself has been all over the map on costs for years. Changes in costs and timelines can be forgiven. Not knowing FAA rules on construction suggest a deeper problem of management.

The Kansas City Star editorial board rightly called for more transparency in the construction of the new airport terminal. The Show-Me Institute has also called repeatedly for more transparency in the airport process since 2013, when the Council first took up the matter.

It’s difficult to be confident that the City will suddenly adopt a position in favor of transparency after years during which the process was opaque. We remain confident, however, given the Aviation Director’s unfamiliarity with FAA guidelines, that transparency remains the highest need.

The post Kansas City Airport Stumbles Along appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It should be noted that members of the City Council did not appear to be welcoming of public input since the very beginning. Recall that back in late 2011, then-City Councilman Ed Ford said that Kansas City was going to get a new terminal regardless of what voters think. Then, after calling it a “wasted effort,” Mayor James and the City Council yielded to a petition requiring a public vote on the airport regardless of funding. More recently, Mayor James sought non-disclosure agreements from other Council members to avoid information becoming public.

Former Aviation Director Mark VanLoh has accepted much of the blame for the new terminal mess. As the Star’s Steve Vockrodt wrote, he simply did not know about Missouri’s requirement that a vote be held in order for airport bonds to be issued. Recall too, that:

• While developing plans for a new single terminal, the Aviation Department  did not consult with the airlines.
• The new terminal campaign was so disorganized that former Star editorialist Yael Abouhalkah called for VanLoh to be removed, writing that he did not “have the public credibility to lead on this extremely crucial project.” It was more than two years before VanLoh was finally forced out.
•  A year before being replaced, VanLoh made a startling admission to a northland chamber of commerce, saying he just wanted a new terminal regardless of facts.

During all of this, Mayor James appointed an Airport Terminal Advisory Group (ATAG) which itself became a source of mistrust and unnecessary secrecy:

• In appointing the co-chairmen, Mayor James made it clear the conclusion he wanted them to reach, saying that anyone who opposed a new terminal was “uninformed.” [July 9 Kansas City Star, story taken down.]
•  Many of the members of the advisory group had contracts with the city, and at least one may have had a conflict of interest in that she worked for the Aviation Department director.
• The advisory group began its series of meetings by removing skeptics at the very moment its leaders were saying the meetings were open to the public.
• In presentations to the advisory committee, the Aviation Department appeared to be inflating repair costs. The estimated costs of building a new terminal were all over the place.
• Despite shifting cost claims, the advisory group appeared uninterested in engaging with anyone skeptical of the Aviation Department’s information regarding the necessity and cost of a new terminal.
• Advisory group members and even Mayor Sly James asserted incorrectly that Kansas City may not use airport funds for city purposes.
• Advisory group leaders secretly met with the Aviation Department’s public relations team.
• Shockingly, one of the co-chairmen of the advisory group—who led an accounting firm in Kansas City—said, “any dollar amount placed on any alternative is almost pretty random.”
• After suggesting they may not make a recommendation because, “the group didn’t have enough information,” advisory group leaders reversed course and indicated they would make a recommendation anyway.
• The advisory committee recommended a new terminal, subject to cost—only after a renovation of the existing terminals was removed as an option.

In addition, many of the arguments used to support the need for a new terminal just collapsed under examination,

• Despite initial claims made by the Aviation Department, there were no EPA or energy needs for a new terminal. In fact, the initial claim about the EPA was bogus.
• Likewise, security concerns about the existing terminals were overhyped. More recent claims that KCI has a long security wait proved to be just as baseless.
• VanLoh once asserted that “KCI now has more airport screeners than all three New York airports combined.” That statement was clearly and unambiguously untrue.
• Suggestions that the airlines won’t expand services with the current configuration have been shown to be unfounded. During the debate over a new terminal, new airlines have come to the airport and existing airlines have expanded service.
• We were told the airlines agreed to pay for a new terminal. This claim was never true and thankfully has been abandoned.
• Despite being strapped for cash, it was even suggested that Kansas may build an airport if Kansas City does not.
• Advocates for a new terminal still claim that if we build a new terminal we will get more traffic, more direct flights to Europe, and new business in Kansas City. They even say we cannot win a bid for Amazon without a new single terminal. This is all speculative, and none of it is founded in any commitments from businesses or airlines.
• In the last few months, we were told that a secretive, no-bid deal was the best option for a new terminal in Kansas City. This was demonstrably untrue, as the Council chose a different vendor once other bids were considered.

Throughout this debate, the conversation shifted from whether or not we need a new terminal to who was going to pay for it, and then again to who was going to build it. We’ve never satisfactorily answered the initial question, which is probably why voters remain skeptical.

Process is important in public policy, and while the Star editorial board and others may be relieved that Kansas City finally has a vendor and we’re cleared for a November vote, ultimately it appears voters are left choosing fruit from a poisoned tree. While it may be true that this proposal is better than what City leaders originally advocated, that is not saying much. We can only guess what other companies would have bid on the project if the bidding process had not appeared to be fixed, if the project did not require private financing, or if the project had not been limited to a single terminal rather than a mere renovation. To advocate for this plan simply because the process is over amounts to letting policymakers off the hook for years of bad behavior. Kansas City deserves much, much better. 

The post A Linked Summary of the KCI Terminal Saga appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Could the airport just be a legacy project? Two years ago, then–Aviation Department Director Mark VanLoh made it seem that way when he told the Northland Regional Chamber of Commerce, “You don’t have [all the information] yet. We don’t even have it yet. I know what I want because I want a new airport.” He just wanted it.

VanLoh is gone, but the strange enthusiasm for a single terminal continues. The new plan is just as over-the-top as the old one. The justifications for the spending come and go—claims of EPA mandates, TSA concerns, and airlines’ refusal to expand services—but the project itself remains the same: a $1.2-billion single terminal that is actually a downsizing of what we have now.

What is new in this round of the discussion is the financing and no-bid contracting. But regardless of who finances and builds the airport, the risk to Kansas City comes from the possibility of increased fees to airlines and passengers. Right now, Kansas City’s airport is very cheap for airlines, and travelers benefit with lots of flights from here. Increase the costs to airlines, and we risk losing that competitive advantage. Other airports have suffered after building new terminals for just that reason (Consider Cincinnati, Sacramento, or San Jose.).

The good news is that the city is no longer claiming that the airlines agreed to finance the project. This was never the case, despite incorrect claims from the Kansas City Star and the Kansas City Business Journal. In truth, the airlines merely agreed to pay higher rent for a new terminal while reserving their right to renegotiate once the terminal is built. They did not issue or back any debt; they accepted no risk.

Proponents of a new terminal are fond of telling us that the new terminal idea is not a Taj Mahal. In fact, they’ve been using that curious term over and over again for years (see the Google search here). The Taj Mahal, of course, is a 400-year-old elaborate mausoleum in India built to house an emperor’s wife. Such determination to settle for nothing less than a new terminal, however, combined with the candor of Mark VanLoh and the out-of-hand dismissal of cheaper alternatives, suggests that this is exactly what the new terminal is: a modern monument to political ego—not what is best for Kansas City.

The post Kansas City’s Airport: A Monument to Political Ego appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

quarrel, make up, contemplate suicide, try to sleep, eat a carrot and gnaw on some chicken bones. Two other characters appear, a master and a slave, who perform a grotesque scene in the middle of the play. A young boy arrives to say that M. Godot will not come today, but that he will come tomorrow.

One doesn’t need too much encouragement to see the parallels. We’ve seen a petition to require a public vote on a new terminal, a show trial of advisory group meetings, a group of airlines who seem to change their views, an ineffective public relations campaign, and then finally we are told that the VanLoh Plan will not come this year. Maybe next year.

The former Aviation Department director and architect of the new terminal plan, Mark VanLoh, did not survive this effort. His career ended as a result of the mismanaged new terminal campaign. Mayor Sly James said in a tweet recently , “VanLoh is not here to kick anymore.” But make no mistake, even with a new department director, the $1.2 billion new terminal plan before us is very much the VanLoh plan. And despite claims that supporters have put the matter on the back burner, the Mayor and City Manager are still active in pushing for a new terminal. It even has its own hashtag: #NewKCI.

Architectural design company Crawford and Associates have their own solution for the airport. While they have not been permitted to present to the City’s Airport Committee, they did present to a meeting of the Urban Summit with several members of the committee in attendance. The Crawford Plan is compelling; it would preserve much of Terminal A while providing the amenities that VanLoh Plan proponents demand. Importantly, it is one-third of the cost of the VanLoh plan. Yet it allows for the same renovation to be done to a second terminal if air traffic continues to increase.

That last part may be why fans of the VanLoh plan don’t like it. Where they seem to prefer one big billion-dollar bet, the Crawford Plan is measured. One might even call it fiscally responsible.

In the meantime, supporters who loudly declared that, “doing nothing is not an option,” have themselves opted to do nothing; not even renovation. They just want a new terminal, and so we’re all still waiting for VanLoh.

The post Waiting for VanLoh appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

City officials have talked recently about trying to hold that election either in August or November of this year, and they said it was important to have airport leadership that the public trusts.

So in order to restore trust in the Aviation Department, city leaders have undertaken a nationwide search for a qualified and well-trusted airport administrator who will come in, clean house, and present to voters a new and more thoroughly considered airport plan. Right?

No. The Aviation Department will be led by Pat Klein, who, according to his LinkedIn page, has been a city employee for 20 years, but with no apparent experience leading an aviation department. According to that same Star piece, Klein will present to the Council and voters the same airport plan that VanLoh and Mayor James have been pushing.

If city leaders want to restore public trust in them and their policy proposals, they need to do more than merely swap out department heads.

The post Shake-Up at KC Aviation Department appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The challenges again would be educating the public on why we think we need a new single terminal. So many people—and around the country—think that aviation revenues should be spent fixing potholes or schools, where as you know airport revenues have to stay on the airport. And because we’re a department of the city that’s a tough sell.

First of all, I can think of no one who claims that aviation revenue should be used elsewhere in the city. It appears to be a red herring argument and it gives short shrift to the arguments that people have made against building a new terminal: Namely, that it will increase fees and therefore risk costing us flights, and that MCI is a great and convenient airport just as it is,

But even more importantly, VanLoh's claims that airport funds stay at the airport is wrong, and he knows it. After all, he signed the documents moving $10 million dollars from the Aviation Department to the City Finance Department, And he agreed to the amendment that extended the loan, too.

If the Aviation Department wants to convince Kansas Citians of anything, they first need to start speaking honestly about how they operate.

The post Aviation Administrator Still Denying Reality appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On Tuesday, Allegiant Air announced it will start nonstop service from Kansas City to Orlando, Southwest Florida and Tampa in mid-November. The Las Vegas–based low-cost airline is operated by Allegiant Travel Co.

In an interview on KMBZ radio, Bill Grady asked airport administrator Mark VanLoh if this new service announcement raised questions about the real need for a new terminal. Mr. VanLoh replied, “I don’t see how the two are connected.”  

In fact, the two are very much connected.

The news of Allegiant Air is not only good news in and of itself, but it demonstrates exactly why Kansas Citians ought to be skeptical of taking on an unnecessarily large expense at the airport. Allegiant Air is a “low-cost” airline. According the The Memphis Business Journal: 

Allegiant often serves smaller markets like Orlando-Sanford International Airport instead of Orlando International Airport to avoid pricey landing fees.

Advocates of spending a great deal of money at the airport tell us that only travelers and airlines will pay the price. That is largely true. They also tell us that the prices airlines pay to serve an airport have little to do with ticket price; that may also be true. But pricey landing fees of the type that would follow an expensive rebuild or remodel may chase away airlines like Allegiant. And they would be a disincentive for bigger airlines like Southwest, too. A Southwest vice president said as much to the airport advisory group, “Higher costs can lead to less service, not more.” They have left other airports over similar price increases.

If Southwest wants to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a new KCI, that might be welcome. But if improvements require issuing bonds resulting in higher fees to airlines, city leaders should think twice. A shiny new airport is of no use if airlines choose not to service it.

The post How a Cheap Airport Helps Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now that a year has passed we can return to the plain facts. The CEO of Southwest Airlines, the carrier with the largest MCI service, was recently in town to showcase a Missouri-themed airplane. While here, as the Star reported, he said of the MCI terminal:

“I agree and Southwest agrees we definitely could stand to make some improvements. The question still remains exactly what is the best way to do that in the most cost-efficient manner,” Kelly said.

Air travelers are sensitive to price, something Kelly said is evident each time oil prices climb and the cost of flying jumps.

“It absolutely kills traffic,” he said.

People use airports to get on and off planes. They do not go to airports to eat at fancy restaurants or to buy socks or baseball caps. MCI is a highly regarded airport by passengers exactly as it is, and any changes need to be sensitive to the costs and convenience to airlines and travelers.

MCI is a relatively cheap airport for airlines to serve. One benefit is the many morning flights out of MCI because Southwest parks their planes here overnight. If airport fees rose to cover the costs of a new terminal, these planes might find cheaper accommodation elsewhere. Same for those midday direct flights to LaGuardia that originate from the West Coast. They stop here because MCI is a cheap place for them to fuel up and collect passengers. If fees rise, they may choose to connect in other cities and cost us the direct service.

Going forward, it is still tough to know who to believe on even the simplest details of the negotiations. Aviation Department Director Mark VanLoh recently told a Northland chamber group that he expects to have a recommendation before the city council by the end of summer. That seems unlikely. According to Austin Alonzo, Southwest’s CEO said, “We’ll get there, and I think patience is probably the right thing because it is a pretty complicated question.” The Star reported that the deadline for a final recommendation is May 2016.

The post Shocker! Airlines Want to Keep Costs Down appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

You don’t have [all the information] yet. We don’t even have it yet. I know what I want because I want a new airport.

With those words at Thursday morning’s Northland Regional Chamber of Commerce meeting, Aviation Department Administrator Mark VanLoh nicely summed up the reason that Kansas City taxpayers have been embroiled against their will in a discussion about building a $1.2 billion new terminal: He just wants it.

VanLoh has been criticized for his clumsy public campaign for a new terminal. And now, perhaps as part of a new approach to getting what he wants, he is revising history. At Thursday’s meeting, he clearly gave the impression that the airlines had to be dragged to the negotiation table.

What the 2013 [plan] did . . . was bring the airlines to the table because they saw something in Kansas City. Something was going to happen and they wanted to be part of it. And we welcome them to the table; we are meeting to this day with the airlines. I know the mayor’s Terminal Advisory Committee recommended a new terminal based on the evidence they had. And of course the Aviation Department recommends a new terminal based on what we know, but we wanted to get back with the airlines.

This does not square with the reported facts. In November 2013, Austin Alonzo of the Kansas City Business Journal reported that “Southwest was not satisfied with its minimal inclusion in vetting the airport proposal before VanLoh presented it to the City Council earlier this year.” The Kansas City Star reported that the airlines then sought to use their lease extension agreement to secure participation in future airport planning.

VanLoh is also overstating his role as champion of the people. He said on Thursday morning that the airlines were surprised to learn how passionate Kansas Citians are about the airport’s convenience, and that the Aviation Department would fight any design that didn’t preserve that convenience. Yet in April 2013 testimony before the city council, VanLoh’s consultants argued that the airport offered a “poor passenger experience.”

That’s when Mayor James advised the Aviation Department that they wouldn’t curry favor with the public by beating up on the airport. The talking point was removed. But even in Thursday’s chamber presentation, VanLoh argued that the perception Kansas Citians have about short walking distances is an “optical illusion.” Regardless of MCI’s convenience, it certainly isn’t the public’s belief that VanLoh is championing. He is merely doing whatever he thinks it takes to get what he wants.

VanLoh said that he expects to have a recommendation before the city council by the end of summer.

The post VanLoh Just Wants a New Terminal appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Even if the report is factually flawed, it aspires to ensure good government. On page 30, the report recommends more transparency:

In addition to KCAD [Kansas City Aviation Department], the City should provide for additional oversight to maintain transparency and improve two-way communication. This oversight (possibly in the form of an informal oversight committee) would be responsible for insuring City involvement and help to oversee the process over the next two years. The oversight committee could also assist in vetting the planning and design process and communicating it to the Mayor of Kansas City, Kansas City Manager, City Council, as well as the general public and local businesses.

Several months have passed, and none of this has been acted upon. It was ignored on the day the City Council received the report. Mayor James said in the July 10, 2014, City Council business session that discussed the report (remarks begin at 37:52):

The question was, as currently configured, does KCI meet the needs of Kansas City now and into the future? And if not, what are our options? Now, the options are being determined now by the airlines as they are in consultations—secret, private consultations—with the Aviation Department. That is their job. They will determine how much money they want to spend. And when they determine how much money they want  to spend they will pretty much tell us what they think we ought to do.

So much for transparency. Also, so much for the work of the ATAG in the first place; a year’s worth of work and $100,000 spent on consultants seems to have been wasted. (As for the financial costs and benefits of a new terminal, the Show-Me Institute has issued its own report.)

Kansas City leaders need to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. While it is good that the airlines are involved—they should have been all along—it does not bode well that the process is again opaque. When the time comes to present options to the public, the truth still may be that, according to Kansas City Star editorialist Yael Abouhalkah, “Director Mark VanLoh does not have the public credibility to lead on this extremely crucial project.” The voters of Kansas City have spoken clearly on this matter, and they deserve to get the transparency and accountability necessary for good public policy.

The post Kansas City Airport Effort Still not Transparent appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Aviation officials and the eight airlines serving Kansas City pledge to collaborate over the next two years on plans for airport terminal improvements. The agreement, with council approval, would take effect May 1 and sets the stage for both sides to work together on a project the public can embrace.

In other words, the Kansas City Aviation Department is announcing that it will do its job: work with airlines to determine what is best for the airport and Kansas City. Remember that Aviation Department Director Mark VanLoh once said on the radio:

. . . he works for the airlines and not the flying public.  He said his goal is to make things easier for the airlines, and not necessarily for passengers.

Yet VanLoh didn’t consult the airlines about the new terminal idea before going public. When the airlines finally learned of the plans, they “cautioned against building something so expensive that it drives up costs and drives away airlines” (as the Show-Me Institute pointed out months earlier).

Once the public learned of the project, they balked as well. VanLoh complained about local politics hampering his efforts. As a result of VanLoh’s own failures to communicate with important stakeholders, the mayor appointed a window-dressing advisory group. The advisory group spent $100,000 on a consultant that attempted to downplay the airlines’ important concerns. (This is on top of the $117,000 the Aviation Department contracted out to convince the public that a new terminal is a good idea.)

This could have all been avoided if VanLoh just did what he was hired to do. According to the Star, Kansas City City Councilman John Sharp said of the recent deal:

“I feel clearly the city dropped the ball in not consulting with the airlines earlier,” Sharp said, adding that the lease approach should address that shortcoming.

For his part, VanLoh is “thrilled” about the new agreement:

Because after what we’ve all seen and heard, we got agreement from all parties that we’re going to sit down together and get us into the future somehow.

That is how bad the airport situation has become in Kansas City — an agreement to merely sit down together with one’s tenant airlines is thrilling. It’s no wonder that some in Kansas City have already called for new airport leadership.

The post Kansas City Airport Officials Decide To Do Their Job appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As the article rightly points out, the aviation director initially supported an even more expensive South Terminal Plan. That approach lost favor with KCAD because the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) would not build the required highway alterations. When selecting a new design, KCAD gave the public three options: the South Terminal Plan (which it already knew it could not do), the current design, and a mirrored option of the current design. So much for alternatives. Even today, after months of Airport Advisory Group meetings, the Aviation Department has yet to create serious renovation alternatives to its desired plan.

The Star article does not point out how the department has repeatedly contradicted itself about cost estimates and construction timelines. First, the airport was going to cost a minimum of $1.2 billion, then it was $900 million, or $965 million. MCI repair costs are shown as less than $200 million in a bond report, but then KCAD claimed the amount is $600 million or even $700 million. The new terminal planning documents call for the new terminal to open by 2019, but the aviation director then claimed that construction will not happen until 2020. At what point should the public conclude that the Aviation Department will say whatever number they think will get a new terminal?

Although the Star article downplays it, the opposition of the airlines has done the most damage to KCAD’s credibility. Before their testimony, the Aviation Department said that critics were wrong: wrong that the debt could harm the airport financially, wrong about how much money a new terminal could generate, wrong that the airport could continue in its current form, even wrong about the convenience of MCI. However, since Southwest representatives essentially vindicated the critics and warned against the risks of the new terminal plan, KCAD’s position has become untenable.

Most residents know that the airlines understand the aviation industry and that if they do not support the new terminal, it is probably a bad idea. What most residents probably do not know is that the ability of MCI to finance the $1.2 billion terminal plan depends on the airlines signing a new contract that makes them responsible for paying the terminal’s immense debt. If the terminal is built and the airlines refuse to sign, then MCI will be in Sacramento International Airport’s current position, scrambling to cut costs and find new revenue sources as its debt payments mount. It seems impossible that KCAD devised a new terminal plan and took that plan public without ensuring that its tenets/source of financing actually wanted it. Yet that is what happened.

It is good to see the Star arguing for change in KCAD’s performance and a new plan for MCI. Whether or not the aviation director is replaced, Kansas City would be well served by an open discussion about the future of Kansas City International Airport.

The post Kansas City Star Calls For New MCI Plan, Airport Leadership appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, this places Stephens in a clear conflict of interest as her boss at the Platte County EDC is none other than Mark VanLoh, who is the director of the Aviation Department. In short, Stephens has been asked to serve on a voluntary group charged with passing judgment on her boss’ magnum opus. What’s worse, Stephen’s isn’t shy about her support for the new terminal and this seems to cloud her ability to perform her job on the advisory group.

During the Nov. 5 meeting, Stephens identified herself as one of the advisory group members who is urging a quick vote on the new terminal project. Starting at the 53:45-minute mark, Stephens asserts that because of her position on the Platte County EDC, she has “that kind of opportunity to visit with many of those stakeholders that others around this table may not.” It’s reasonable to expect that a person in her position should know what airport stakeholders are thinking, after all, the airport is in Platte County.

But it appears she does not. The week after Stephens urged a quick vote based on her ‘special knowledge’ of stakeholders, Southwest Airlines — the airport’s biggest stakeholder — announced that the new terminal proposal is too expensive, creates a disincentive to serve Kansas City International (MCI), and that Southwest felt it was not adequately represented in new terminal discussions. Exactly what is the value of having the “kind of opportunity to visit” with stakeholders if these strong views from the biggest stakeholder were missed?

Stephens may mean well in her service to the advisory group, but she is not as dialed in to the views of airport stakeholders as she presents. And how can her input be taken seriously when her very livelihood is dependent upon the man on whose plan she is being asked to pass judgment?

The post Who Is Alicia Stephens And Why Should Kansas City Care? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Building a new terminal would not require general taxpayer funds. Instead, bonds would be paid by airport passengers, airlines and other users of the facility.

Now we learn from the Kansas City Business Journal that general taxpayer funds will be used after all. On Nov. 19, Austin Alonzo reported on the latest airport advisory group meeting:

During the meeting, Fowler announced that the board will “engage” New York-based transportation consultancy firm Frasca & Associates LLC as its independent consultant.

After the meeting, Fowler said Kansas City will handle the consultant’s contract, which could be worth as much as $100,000. More information on that choice and what the firm will do for the KCI Advisory Board will be revealed at the group’s next meeting.

Why are general taxpayer funds being used instead of airport funds? Apparently VanLoh cried poverty, saying the Aviation Department does not have the money. Mind you, the airport had the $117,000 to pay public relations firm Global Prairie to tell us how great an idea the new terminal is. The Aviation Department found the money to conduct the multi-year study that is now being considered. They even had the cash to loan Kansas City $10 million (at a modest rate of interest).

Terminal supporters may argue that the Aviation Department should not have to pay for a consultant to review Aviation Department claims. (After all, we at The Show-Me Institute have been investigating the matter for months at no public expense.) But even if you accept that argument, if the new terminal plan goes forward it, will put the airport into even more debt than the new terminal will generate in revenue. And that debt, we argue, could result in Kansas City making up the difference from the general taxpayer funds, as it has with Power & Light, The Citadel and this current airport consultant. Residents will certainly pay the high costs through airline tickets, parking, or reduced options at MCI.

The people of Kansas City do not want a new terminal. MCI’s biggest tenant, Southwest Airlines, says the proposed plan is too expensive and unnecessary. In most places, that would be enough to settle the issue, but in Kansas City, it just increases the cost (see also: streetcar).

The post New Terminal Already Costing Kansas City Taxpayers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The statement that terminal rebuilding is seven years away, at the earliest, is likely to confuse anyone who has read the Aviation Department’s own plan. Put out in April (one month before the meeting with Southwest), and still on the website as current, the plan states that construction is to begin in June of 2016. That’s less than three years away. In fact, the terminal is supposed to open on Feb. 1, 2019, slightly more than five years from today. Whatever number you view, it appears the Aviation Department was looking to rebuild far sooner than seven years from now. So where is the Aviation Department director’s number of seven years coming from? Is the plan on the website outdated? If so, why have they not issued a new document? And because VanLoh is claiming that he didn’t discuss financial details with Southwest because rebuilding is seven years away, does that mean that the plan written in April was outdated by May?

According to the information that the Aviation Department released earlier this year, they have a new terminal design, cost estimates, and a tentative construction schedule. But it seems like every time the Airport Advisory Group meets or the Aviation Department director talks to a newspaper, we hear entirely new cost estimates and timelines. For the good of Kansas City residents, the city should seek independent analysis of the Kansas City Airport and the new terminal plan.

The post Kansas City Aviation Department Director Contradicts Own Planning Document appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Kansas City’s recent past is full of rosy development projects that did not pan out; KCP&L (Kansas City Power & Light) is chief among them. As a result, the city — and the taxpayers who fund city operations — are on the hook for about $13 million each year. Funds used to support the project are being diverted from other worthy causes.

Aviation Department Administrator Mark VanLoh says: “One common misconception the city must overcome: People think Kansas City will have to raise taxes to pay for a new terminal. It will not.” Maybe, maybe not.

Let’s review airport revenue. Dave Helling wrote in the Kansas City Star about how a new terminal would struggle to raise revenue:

There aren’t a lot of ways airport users could generate that kind of revenue. Ticket sales are already taxed, and air travel here is slumping. The airlines could pay more in rent, but other airports would pounce if the cost at KCI gets too high.

Indeed, VanLoh has admitted in press interviews that airports in Branson, Mo., and Wichita, Kan., are already taking market share from Kansas City because they are paying airlines to land there. Increasing rents or landing fees are not a realistic option.

If the airport is unlikely to be able to generate the revenue needed to support those bonds, can’t we turn to the federal government for help? VanLoh says “no,” telling the Star that large-scale federal participation in the project faces headwinds.

If the city were to issue $1.5 billion in revenue bonds in order to pay for the new terminal, it certainly would require a vote of the people. (Note that the $1.5 billion they are now considering is already a 25 percent increase over where we started, at $1.2 billion.) But what of Kansas City’s 2nd District City Councilman Ed Ford’s assertion in November that the project is “going to happen regardless of whether our citizens want it to happen”?

It turns out that not all bonds require voter approval. These bonds, known as Special Obligation Bonds, are not considered debt in the same way as other bonds and therefore require no public vote. Kansas City uses them all the time, and in fact is preparing to issue some this year to pay for the streetcar. Special Obligation Bonds were created to address a city’s immediate need — say, a broken water main — when it does not have the resources to fix it or the time to seek a vote. Kansas City issued two such bonds in 2012 amounting to $75 million that funded computer upgrades for the city’s revenue collectors, garages, and the refinancing of the ill-fated Citadel Plaza project.

Unlike revenue bonds, which do require a public vote, these bonds are normally secured by property. In this case, the Aviation Department may secure the $1.5 billion debt with the airport itself. While the city may not have to raise taxes, as VanLoh says, it is well within reason that the city will have to cover those bond payments from the general fund just like we cover KCP&L.

Welcome to the Kansas City Power and Flight District.

The post Kansas City’s Power And Flight District appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

At that hearing in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Kansas City Aviation Department Director Mark VanLoh walked the committee through a slide show detailing the problems with the existing Kansas City International Airport. Chief among the reasons for spending $1.2 billion on a new terminal is “poor passenger experience.” Yet none of the material available to the public gives any indication of how the Aviation Department concluded passengers have a poor experience. When I asked about the Aviation Department’s methodology, Johnson responded that my questions would not be answered (questions start at 1:13:30). This matter is important because in 2010, J.D. Power and Associates rated the same airport as “highest among medium airports,” writing: “Kansas City International (MCI) ranks highest among medium airports, and performs particularly well in three of the six factors: airport accessibility, check-in/baggage check and security check.”

In his later remarks disparaging J.D. Power, Johnson wrongly referred to the company as a think tank. It is not. It is a customer satisfaction survey firm that McGraw-Hill owns. J.D. Power is likely known to many voters because its ratings appear in numerous television commercials. VanLoh even said that when J.D. Power rated MCI the best in 2010, his department asked if they could publicize that rating and were told it would cost $80,000 to do so. They were likely correct to demur. But if VanLoh and his colleagues are going to rate the same airport as providing a “poor passenger experience,” it is reasonable to ask how they did so when they endorsed Power’s “best in the country” rating just a few years prior.

If the Aviation Department and their chorus on the City Council want to tear down a much-loved and nationally recognized airport, the public deserves transparent processes and substantive answers to serious questions regarding the endeavor’s necessity.

The post Airport Transparency appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The five-year contract would be worth $3.6 million a year, which Mark VanLoh, director of the aviation department, said would save the airport about $7 million during the length of the agreement. . . .

VanLoh said KCI (Code: MCI) is one of the only U.S. airports still running its own shuttles, and the costs and insurance headaches have gotten to be too much.

For example, the shuttles have been involved in about 50 accidents during the past two and a half years. Half of those resulted in lawsuits, with the city paying an average of $200,000 each. Under the contract, Standard would take over the insurance obligations.

The airport saves money, Standard makes money, and the service to customers continues. Sounds win-win to me. Indeed, Kansas City (and the state generally) should consider privatizing more of its services. Fortunately, the Show-Me Institute has a handy dandy list of proposals worth a look. The airport’s move is a step in the right direction.

The post A Victory For Taxpayers: Kansas City May Privatize Airport Shuttle Service appeared first on Show-Me Institute.