EXHIBIT K OVERVIEW KANSAS CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PREPARED BY: April 2016

Transcription

1 OVERVIEW April 2016 PREPARED BY:, Incorporated AirProjects, Inc. AvAirPros Connico Incorporated HNTB Corporation LeighFisher Inc. PGAL Ross & Baruzzini, Inc. SK Design Group, Inc. Vic Thompson Company Wellner Architects, Inc.

2

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing Terminals A, B and C were designed in the late 1960s to serve the needs of air travelers in the Midwest. The terminals were built by the City of Kansas City, Missouri (KCMO or City) and completed in With more than 10,000 acres, the Kansas City International Airport, commonly referred to as KCI, is one of the largest U.S. commercial passenger airports. KCI Terminal Planning Process Beginning in 1995, KCMO initiated a variety of planning efforts to address the planning of terminal facilities such as airport master plan and terminal improvement program. The 1995 Kansas City International Airport Master Plan and FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Studies identified facility improvements in 20-year projected levels and were adopted by the City Council as the official guides. In 1995, the Terminal Improvement Project (TIP) planned a phased terminal renovation project for all three KCI terminals. After 2001, compliance with the Department of Homeland Security Guidelines was added to the TIP project. The 2008 KCI Master Plan Study Update provided a vision for the growth and development of KCI facilities and land use decisions. In 2011 the Advance Terminal Planning Study (ATP), initiated research and analysis that produced the Program Criteria Document (PCD) for Kansas City Aviation Department (KCAD) and the Terminal Area Master Plan (TAMP) for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which recommended a new terminal complex to replace the three existing terminals with one consolidated state-of-the-art facility. Following the release of the PCD and TAMP, the Mayor formed the Terminal Advisory Group (ATAG) in July 2013 and tasked the Group with recommending an optimal configuration of the terminal. In the ATAG s May 2014 Final Report it recommended that, Subject to final cost estimates, Terminal Concept Alternative 3 (a new single terminal) was found to be the best for Kansas City. Executive Summary July 2017 Page 1 of 6

4 After the release of the ATP PCD/TAMP reports and the ATAG s Final Report, the airlines serving KCI, led by the Airport s major market share carrier, Southwest Airlines, were still not convinced that building a new terminal would be less expensive than renovating the existing terminal facilities. To address the airlines concerns, KCAD and the Signatory airlines initiated the Exhibit K Agreement that defined a process to more fully explore major renovations of the existing terminals and revisit new terminal concepts. Exhibit K Agreement Exhibit K Agreement defined a unique collaborative process involving a working partnership between the airlines serving KCI and KCAD with the goal of defining a preferred alternative by examining both the possibility of a Major Renovation (MR) of KCI s existing terminals or building a completely New Terminal (NT) complex. The stakeholders primarily involved directly with the Exhibit K process were key KCAD management personnel and representatives from all the airlines serving KCI led by management staff from Southwest Airlines (WN) since WN is the current KCI market share leader. Other indirect participants included City Council, Airport & Airline Affairs Committee (AAAC) and the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee. The Exhibit K process was directed by the Leadership Committee (LC) comprised of key management staff from KCAD and WN supported by the Airlines Technical Representative (ATR) and Terminal Planning Team (TPT) consisting of aviation planning and architectural expertise performing technical planning and conceptual design services under the Terminal Development Program (TDP). The LC and its supporting consultant team prepared the Exhibit K goals and evaluation criteria to guide the development of alternatives to be affordable with a focus toward customer convenience and access to state-of-the-art technology, address improving air service efficiencies, ensure flexibility for future growth, provide rightsized facilities to accommodate the KCI forecast of aviation activity, and constructed with minimal disruption to passenger services and airline operations. The TDP defined a planning process in support of Exhibit K that updated the forecasts, revised the terminal requirements, guided development of potential renovation and new terminal alternatives, short-listed alternatives and selected a preferred terminal complex alternative for subsequent architectural design and bond approval. The Exhibit K agreement concluded in April A subsequent step would be City Council s approval of new terminal recommendation for a public referendum to obtain voter approval of the bond financing. Executive Summary July 2017 Page 2 of 6

5 Demand Forecast and Facility Requirements The forecasts developed for this process considered key issues and trends affecting future aviation demand following a multi-tiered approach and bottom-up analysis of city-pair markets to prepare both annual, peak period, and future design day flight schedules for 2025 and The number of seats in the future schedules reflected an increase in the average size of passenger airline aircraft at KCI (or up-gauging ) based on airline input as well as airline fleets and aircraft orders. Using this forecast data, the analysis determined that over the planning period through 2030, the forecast required 35 new gates, with terminal core systems sized for future expansion to include seven additional gates for a total of 42 gates beyond The size of the future terminal for the 2025 forecast was determined to require 752,960 sq.ft. which is nearly 21,000 sq.ft. less than the size of existing Terminals B & C combined. The landside requirements analysis based on the revised forecast determined that the inbound and outbound terminal roadways require a minimum of two lanes in each direction; additional curbside length needed by 2030 of 190 linear feet for departures and 230 linear feet for private vehicle arrivals and 255 linear feet for commercial vehicle arrivals; and public parking will need to increase by approximately 40 percent by Development and Evaluation of the MR and NT Alternatives The planning approach to develop the MR Alternatives was to reuse and repurpose wherever possible any of the existing apron, terminal and landside facilities that could be adapted to provide adequate facilities to meet future airport operational standards. All MR Alternative site and building plans needed to provide appropriately sized and reconfigured functional areas to meet the 2025 forecast demands and meet Exhibit K goals while also providing the flexibility to meet future capacity expansion needs. For developing the NT Alternatives, the approach was to use the vacant Terminal A site to provide new apron, terminal and landside facilities to meet future airport operational standards while also meeting the Exhibit K programmatic requirements and performance goals. A number of design charrettes were conducted with the LC, the ATR and TPT to broadly review all options and to group the options into MR and NT families and select the two best alternatives from each family. The evaluation criteria, based on the Exhibit K goals, identified four short-listed alternatives that once selected were renamed MR A, MR B, NT A and NT B. Alternative MR A was viewed as a possible transition of the existing terminals to more current airport industry performance standards through the reuse of the two existing terminals, Terminals B and C, as two separate central processors (CP), some of the terminal approach and recirculation roadways, and the aircraft aprons. Alternative MR B created a new consolidated CP Terminal situated between existing Terminals A and B and reused two of the existing terminals primarily as airside concourses, and some of the terminal approach and recirculation roadways and aircraft aprons. Executive Summary July 2017 Page 3 of 6

6 Alternative NT A consisted of a new single rectilinear terminal that contains all passenger and baggage processing in one CP terminal with a dual level curb, new arrival and departure roadways, a new public parking garage and new aircraft parking aprons and dual taxilane circulation to the majority of aircraft parking positions. Alternative NT B consisted of a new terminal that contained all passenger and baggage processing in one CP with a dual level curb, two Y shaped concourses, new arrival and departure roadways, a new public parking garage and new aircraft parking aprons and dual taxilane system to the majority of terminal aircraft parking positions. These final four alternatives were then evaluated against the Exhibit K goals. The conceptual terminal designs were further refined and cost estimates were reassessed in order to bring the capital costs into the affordability target range. An independent review by a second estimator, requested by the ATR, confirmed that the MR alternatives costs were actually higher in cost than the NT alternatives. Also, a financial model analysis indicated that the MR alternatives were not only significantly more expensive from a capital cost perspective, but also significantly higher on a rates and charges basis when compared to the NT alternatives. Based on these financial findings and the evaluation process, it was the unanimous consensus of the LC to withhold further analysis of the two MR alternatives and to focus solely on refining the two NT alternatives. The landside, terminal, airside, and construction phasing elements of the two shortlisted NT alternatives were further refined and re-evaluated using a more detailed evaluation matrix and an additional iteration of cost estimates. The further refinement of Alternative NT A improved the curb exit roadway geometry, aircraft maneuverability on the south apron, and by slightly moving the location of the Terminal to the North on the offering Executive Summary July 2017 Page 4 of 6

7 improvements to airside maneuverability and construction phasing while additional right-size of the facilities assisted to reduce capital costs. Further refinements were also made to Alternative NT B providing additional performance improvements and cost reductions. After these refinements to both NT alternatives, it was the conclusion of the LC that NT-A outperformed NT-B based on the Exhibit K goals and could be constructed for less of a capital investment. Preferred Alternative NT-A Alternative NT-A will provide the traveling public with a new, single, consolidated terminal complex with the latest in passenger conveniences and amenities. Compared to today s existing terminals, the new KCI terminal will create separate arrivals and departure roadways with covered private and commercial vehicle curbs, a new 6,500 stall public parking garage immediately across from terminal, new expedited check-in processes, the latest in passenger and carryon baggage security screening to minimize wait times, ample public circulation with moving walkways, a wide variety of food and retail concessions situated throughout the terminal, and larger gate departure areas with conveniently located restrooms. Additionally, behind the scenes to the general public, major improvements to the airlines operating infrastructure including dual taxilanes to all aircraft gate positions and baggage handling systems will assist in improving on-time flight performance and faster baggage delivery. Final Recommendation During the April 26, 2016 presentation at City Council, the Airlines agreed to the Exhibit K recommendation of designing and building a new single, consolidated terminal complex based on the NT A Alternative. The Airport and the Airlines serving Kansas City have also reached agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding which provides the framework for a new long-term Use and Lease Agreement to support the new single, consolidated terminal complex. As a part of this agreement the Airlines will back the General Airport Revenue Bonds for the new terminal program and as a result no City tax revenues will be used or be at risk. The Airlines do not support any other terminal alternative and had requested an August 2016 referendum. Executive Summary July 2017 Page 5 of 6

8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Executive Summary July 2017 Page 6 of 6

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 BACKGROUND AIRPORT TERMINAL PLANNING PROCESS MASTER PLAN AND FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY STUDY TERMINAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM KCI MASTER PLAN STUDY UPDATE ADVANCE TERMINAL PLANNING STUDY TERMINAL AREA MASTER PLAN AIRPORT TERMINAL ADVISORY GROUP (ATAG) PROCESS THE TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS FORECAST APPROACH KCI FORECAST: GATE REQUIREMENTS EXISTING KCI TERMINAL SPACE VERSUS TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS TERMINAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS: MAJOR RENOVATION (MR) VERSUS NEW TERMINAL (NT) COMPARISON OF U.S. AIRPORT TERMINAL CONFIGURATIONS LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS AIRSIDE REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ATTRIBUTES OF THE MR ALTERNATIVES ATTRIBUTES OF THE NT ALTERNATIVES INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES REFINEMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION OF ALL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA DEFINITIONS EVALUATION PROCESS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS FOR FINAL FOUR ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE MR A ALTERNATIVE MR B ALTERNATIVE NT A ALTERNATIVE NT B SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF FINAL FOUR ALTERNATIVES July 2017 Table of Contents Page i of iv

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EVALUATION MATRIX MR APPROACH VERSUS NT APPROACH TWO SELECTED ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE NT A ALTERNATIVE NT B SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE NT A ALTERNATIVE NT A July 2017 Table of Contents Page ii of iv

11 LIST OF EXHIBITS PAGE Exhibit 1 Exhibit K Planning Team... 8 Exhibit 2 Exhibit K Process... 8 Exhibit 3 Exhibit K Program Goals... 9 Exhibit 4 Forecast Approach Exhibit 5 Forecast Scenarios Exhibit 6 Forecast Gate Requirements Exhibit 7 Existing Space / Terminal Requirements Exhibit 8 Facility Requirements: MR versus NT Exhibit 9 Other Airport Terminal Configurations Exhibit 10 of Terminal Planning Approach Exhibit 11 Two-Track Terminal Evaluation Process Exhibit 12 Alternative MR A Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit 13 Alternative MR B Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit 14 Alternative NT A Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit 15 Alternative NT B Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit 16 Conceptual Cost Estimates by Major Facility Components Exhibit 17 Evaluation Matrix MR Approach versus NT Approach Exhibit 18 Alternative NT A Site Plan Exhibit 19 Alternative NT B Site Plan Exhibit 20 Alternative NT A Site Plan Exhibit 21 Alternative NT A Floor Plan, Level 1 ARRIVALS Exhibit 22 Alternative NT A Floor Plan, Level 2 DEPARTURES Exhibit 23 Alternative NT A East/West Section Exhibit 24 Alternative NT A Perspective, Check-in Lobby Exhibit 25 Alternative NT A Perspective, Post Security Reconciliation Exhibit 26 Alternative NT A Perspective, Midfield Concourse July 2017 Table of Contents Page i of iv

12 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1 Summary of Annual Forecast Scenarios Table 2 Charrette #1 Summary Evaluation of Major Renovation (MR) and New Terminal (NT) Alternatives Table 3 Charrette #1 Alternatives that Met Exhibit K Program Goals July 2017 Table of Contents Page ii of iv

13 OVERVIEW 1.0 BACKGROUND The existing Terminals A, B, and C were designed in the late 1960 s to serve the needs of air travelers in the Midwest. The terminals were built by the City of Kansas City, Missouri (KCMO or City) and completed in The KCI facility consists of more than 10,000 acres, making it one of the largest U.S. commercial passenger airports by acreage. Only Denver International, Dallas/Fort Worth International, Southwest Florida International (Fort Myers), Orlando International, and Dulles International have a greater land envelope. The Airport is located 15 miles northwest of the Central Business District (CBD). The next closest commercial passenger airport to the CBD with scheduled service is Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA), located 175 driving miles northwest of KCI. The Kansas City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, encompasses 15 counties that include Bates, Caldwell, Cass, Clay, Clinton, Jackson, Lafayette, Platte, and Ray counties in Missouri; and Franklin, Johnson, Leavenworth, Linn, Miami, and Wyandotte counties in Kansas. The Kansas City Aviation Department (KCAD) defines the KCI Air Service Area as all counties in the MSA plus Buchanan County in Missouri and Douglas County in Kansas. Beginning in 1995, KCMO initiated a variety of interrelated planning efforts to address the planning of airport terminal facilities that included key stakeholders and public input. These various planning processes are summarized below and are described in more detail in subsequent sections of this document as referenced with each summary. Section Kansas City International Airport Master Plan and F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Adopted by the City Council of Kansas City as the official guides for development and land use compatibility at KCI Section Terminal Improvement Program (TIP) Provided a planned a phased terminal renovation project for all three KCI terminals (A, B, and C) Section KCI Master Plan Study Update Provided a vision for the growth and development of KCI for the following 20 years establishing a framework to develop facilities and guide long-term on-airport land use decisions July 2017 Page 1 of 68

14 Section Advance Terminal Planning Study Terminal Area Master Plan The Advance Terminal Planning Study (ATP) was initiated by the City to continue the research and analysis of a new South Terminal option and set priorities to implement the recommendations of the 2008 Master Plan The Terminal Area Master Plan (TAMP) provided the programmatic guidance for the development and analysis of new terminal alternatives respecting the overall ATP goals for a new South Terminal Section Airport Terminal Advisory Group (ATAG) Key stakeholders reviewed study analyses to recommend an optimal configuration for the airport to best serve the vision and long-term success of its residents, businesses, and visitors for economic impact, flexibility, and safety Section Exhibit K Process 1 A cooperative/collaborative process of the City of KCMO and City Council along with the participation of the airlines and airport management to improve KCI Section The Terminal Development Program (TDP) The TDP was initiated with the approval of City of Kansas City Ordinance No that authorized additional technical planning and conceptual designs in support of the Exhibit K process The TDP provided the technical and creative services for the planning, design and specialized analyses that supported the Exhibit K process 1 On April 30, 2014, KCAD and the airlines entered into an amendment that extended the Airport s Use and Lease Agreement for 2 years. The amended agreement established new Terminal Project Procedures referred to as Exhibit K hereafter. KCI Final Report & Recommendations Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City Airport Terminal Advisory Group, May 30, Appendix F, Exhibit K Terminal Project Procedures, Phase I-Development of Terminal Program & Alternatives. July 2017 Page 2 of 68

15 2.0 AIRPORT TERMINAL PLANNING PROCESS MASTER PLAN AND FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY STUDY The 1995 Kansas City International Airport Master Plan and F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study were adopted by the City Council of Kansas City as the official guides for development and land use compatibility at KCI. These studies developed the 20-year projected activity levels (through 2025) as well as contingency planning activity levels. The Master Plan identified facility improvements to meet the projected activity levels and assessed the potential economic, environmental, and operational consequences of those improvement projects. The Part 150 Study determined the current and projected aircraft noise levels, assessed the impact of aircraft noise levels on the surrounding community, and identified methods of reducing the impact of aircraft noise through operational and land use management programs TERMINAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Beginning in 1995, the Terminal Improvement Project (TIP) planned a phased terminal renovation project for all three KCI terminals (A, B, and C). This Program included asbestos abatement and the complete overhaul of security equipment, layout, procedures, and management. After 2001, compliance with the Department of Homeland Security Guidelines was added to this project. Improvements were made to concessions, flight information displays, HVAC systems, ground transportation systems, and as requested by individual airlines, specific departure lounges were expanded. Baggage handling systems were improved and aesthetic improvements were made to the exterior and interior walls and floor finishes. A number of improvements were not included in this Program: Not all airlines requested gate area expansion The TIP remodeled all existing pre-security restrooms; but it was not until after the events of September 11, 2001, when new security screening procedures lengthened the time needed to screen passengers and carry-on bags, that a change order added restrooms beyond the security screening checkpoints Terminal connectivity, via mono rail, was not advanced due to funding Security walls (glass) between secure and non-secure areas of the terminal were not raised to the full ceiling height Escalators/elevators were not replaced Underground utilities were not addressed Checked baggage explosive detection systems were not a part of the TIP; these were installed for six of ten airlines four years after the TIP July 2017 Page 3 of 68

16 KCI MASTER PLAN STUDY UPDATE The 2008 KCI Master Plan Update Study (2008 MP Update) 2 provided a vision for the growth and development of KCI for the next 20 years establishing a framework to develop facilities and guide long-term on-airport land use decisions. The 2008 MP Update also identified the need for a passenger terminal complex to serve the projected increase in passenger demand and provide a passenger processing facility that would meet and exceed customer service expectations. Several terminal alternatives, including major renovations and new facilities, were identified. From these various conceptual terminal options and with all three existing terminals in operation to meet airline gate needs, the South Terminal option was selected for further analysis to define the future terminal project in more detail and verify its financial feasibility. This option based on the 2008 forecast included a new 59-gate terminal south of Runway 9/27, a new terminal curb front and loop roadway system, a new south access roadway from Missouri Route 152 (M-152), and an upgrade to I-435 and the I-29 ramps connecting to M ADVANCE TERMINAL PLANNING STUDY TERMINAL AREA MASTER PLAN Advance Terminal Planning Study The Advance Terminal Planning Study (ATP), initiated on November 28, 2011, continued the research and analysis of a new South Terminal option. The overall ATP goals described the expectations of the study and guided the planning process to create an achievable, implementable plan and to set priorities for making realistic, practical decisions to develop the facilities previously recommended in the 2008 MP Update. Develop a program/plan for improved Terminal facilities which enhance Kansas City s role in providing a high level of air service and source of community pride for Kansas City and the region Enhance the Airport & City's image through an improved airport arrivals and departures experience Provide new efficient and technologically advanced airside, terminal and landside facilities that promote the ultimate in passenger processing conveniences Other facility-specific goals were also defined for the airside, terminal, and landside facilities including financial affordability. As a part of the ATP, the aviation forecasts were updated. These updated ATP forecasts were coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 2008 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and reflected a significant turndown in the U.S. economy that resulted in a reduction in air service 2 Kansas City International Airport Master Plan and F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study, 2008, prepared by. This study is also known as the KCI Master Plan Update Study (2008 MP Update). July 2017 Page 4 of 68

17 at KCI. This equated to a corresponding reduction in the terminal gates being leased by the air carriers serving KCI. As a result, the previous MP terminal gate requirements were reduced from 59 down to 37 for the 2025 forecast horizon. Very early in the ATP process, it was determined that the landside access for the MP s proposed South Terminal location, specifically the new southern terminal access interchange and roadway from Missouri Route 152 (M 152), were no longer being considered for funding by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MDOT) during the 2025 timeframe. Additionally, the ATP study provided more detail on the cut and fill site preparation as well as new utility infrastructure costs involved in opening up the proposed MP s new South Terminal site. The reduced number of terminal gate requirements combined with the significantly increased cost of roadways and utility infrastructure required to implement the South Terminal turned the ATP Team s focus back to potential building sites within the airport terminal complex core. With the reduction in airlines activity and gate requirements, the City and KCAD began considering the consolidation of all airlines serving KCI into Terminals B and C since the potential closure of Terminal A would yield a savings of about $2.5 million a year in operating costs. The closure of Terminal A on January 9, 2014, provided a site to construct a new terminal should the existing Terminal A be demolished. The ATP Study confirmed that a new 37-gate terminal, with the potential to incrementally grow beyond 42 gates by 2030, could be constructed on the Terminal A site but at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion. The ATP Study produced two primary deliverables, the Program Criteria Document (PCD) and the Terminal Area Master Plan (TAMP). The purpose of the PCD was to provide programmatic and conceptual guidance about the recommended alternative a new consolidated single terminal on the existing Terminal A site to a subsequently procured architectural and engineering team. The TAMP was requested by the FAA to document the various alternatives examined during the ATP Study. Together, these two documents provided the background information, data, and analysis that led to the selection of a new terminal plan to replace the three existing terminals with one integrated state-of-the-art facility. Following the announcement of the recommendation of the ATP Study, some of the general public along with some of the airlines serving KCI questioned the merit of building a new terminal compared to undertaking a major renovation of the existing terminals. Within this background of controversy, the City initiated two planning efforts to more thoroughly incorporate the input of these major stakeholders the KCAD, City Planning and Development, City officials, the airlines, and the general public. Airport Terminal Advisory Group (ATAG) The Mayor of Kansas City appointed this 24-person group that started their efforts in July 2013 serving for about 12 months. They provided insight as to whether it was better to proceed with the construction of the new terminal, as proposed by the ATP Study, or would a major renovation of the existing terminal be a more prudent option. July 2017 Page 5 of 68

18 Exhibit K The signatory airlines serving KCI, represented by an Airline Technical Representative (ATR), along with the City initiated a collaborative KCAD and airline work plan, entitled Exhibit K, to identify alternatives to renovate the existing terminals and the additional new single consolidated terminal alternatives. The objective of Exhibit K was to assist the City in identifying a mutually agreed upon Terminal Development Program (TDP) as part of the airlines Use and Lease negotiations with the City. Exhibit K and the associated TDP began in April 2014 and presented its recommendation during April AIRPORT TERMINAL ADVISORY GROUP 3 (ATAG) The Mayor tasked the Airport Terminal Advisory Group (ATAG) with reviewing the appropriate relevant facts and consulting with key stakeholders to make a recommendation for the optimal configuration of the airport. The recommended option needed to best serve the vision and long-term success of its private and business residents and visitors from the standpoint of economic impact (affordability and business creation), flexibility (adaptability and convenience) and safety (security and environmental performance). The ATAG began meeting in July 2013 and issued its Final Report and recommendation in May After a full year of meetings, fact-finding, and deliberations, on May 7, 2014, the ATAG announced the results of its formal vote on its findings and recommendations regarding the future of the terminal development at KCI. Specifically, ATAG concluded by a significant consensus (19 votes for and 5 votes against) that: 5 The terminals at KCI are not currently configured in a layout that provides the best level of service to Kansas City residents and visitors; The Key Performance Indicators identified by the ATAG represented the best collective judgment of comparative criteria for evaluating the various alternative terminal concepts; ATAG identified and adequately solicited input from the appropriate key stakeholders during its efforts; ATAG had enough information to recommend an optimal airport terminal concept from one of the three alternative terminal concepts identified by the ATAG; and Subject to final cost estimates, Terminal Concept Alternative 3 (a new single terminal) was found to be the best for Kansas City. 3 Additional information about the Airport Terminal Advisory Group is provided on the City of Kansas City web site: This information includes its purpose, final report, frequently asked questions, meetings, key performance indicators, and public meetings. 4 KCI Final Report and Recommendations Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City Airport Terminal Advisory Group, May 30, KCI Final Report and Recommendations Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City Airport Terminal Advisory Group, May 30, Executive Summary. July 2017 Page 6 of 68

19 2.6 PROCESS Exhibit K was a unique cooperative/collaborative process of the KCMO City Council and KCAD to improve KCI with the participation of both the airlines and airport management (see Exhibit 1, Exhibit K Planning Team). On April 30, 2014, KCAD and the airlines entered into an amendment to extend the Airport Use and Lease Agreement for two years. This amended agreement established new procedures for the terminal project referred to as Exhibit K. Exhibit K defined the collaborative working relationship between KCAD and the airlines to define a direction and preferred alternative for future capital development of the KCI terminal area (see Exhibit 2, Exhibit K Process). Exhibit K defined the key stakeholders actively involved in this process: the KCAD, Airport & Airline Affairs Committee (AAAC), Airline Technical Representative (ATR), Leadership Committee, and the Terminal Planning Team. 6 KCAD: The Kansas City Aviation Department is a department of the City (the City is the owner-operator of the Airport). The City, as represented by KCAD, was the TDP sponsor with responsibility for funding, procurement, and coordination with Federal, City, local governing agencies, and other stakeholders. ATR: The Airline Technical Representative, retained by the airlines to assist the Signatory Airlines in their oversight of the TDP. During the Exhibit K process, the ATR was the single point of contact for all airline coordination issues as required for timely input from the Signatory Airlines as required for identification of the Recommended Terminal Development Alternative. (Signatory Airlines are defined as those Airlines serving KCI.) Leadership Committee: The committee established by KCAD and Signatory Airlines to provide leadership over the TDP. Members consisted of: (1) KCAD Deputy Director, Engineering (Program Director), (2) KCAD Deputy Director, Finance, (3) KCAD Deputy Director, Commercial Development, (4) the Signatory Airlines AAAC Chair or their designated representative. The Leadership Committee reported to the KCAD Aviation Director. Terminal Planning Team: The KCAD planning and design consultants tasked with developing the conceptual terminal alternatives and study materials. Exhibit K identified the two families of viable alternatives to be considered: (a) major renovation, expansion, or re-lifing 7 of the existing terminal facilities, or (b) new terminal development within the current terminal area. This collaborative Exhibit K process included updating forecasts and programmatic facility requirements, additional conceptual alternatives and cost estimates for both families of alternatives. 6 KCI Final Report and Recommendations Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City Airport Terminal Advisory Group, May 30, Definitions, p. 1 of 7 and p. 2 of 7. 7 Re-lifing is the process where existing buildings undergo significant refurbishment to extend their useful life allowing owners to improve the serviceability of their buildings and apply the principles of ecologically sustainable development. July 2017 Page 7 of 68

20 EXHIBIT 1: Exhibit K Planning Team HNTB = HNTB Corporation L&B =, Incorporated WA = Wellner Architects Source: MEPFP = Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection SKDesign = SK Design Group Inc. Leadership Committee Recommendation Terminal Modernization Program, City Council Briefing, April 26, Leigh Fisher and. EXHIBIT 2: Exhibit K Process Source: KCI Development Program Process Update, City Council Meeting, December 10, Leigh Fisher and. July 2017 Page 8 of 68

21 As shown in Exhibit 3, Exhibit K Program Goals, this process was designed to develop an affordable plan to improve the airport terminal facilities with a focus toward customer convenience and access to state-of-the-art technologies, improving air service efficiencies while ensuring the facilities provide flexibility for future growth, right-sized functional areas based on the KCI forecast of aviation activity, and phased construction to minimize disruptions to passengers and airline service. The following describes the Exhibit K Program Goals in more detail. EXHIBIT 3: Exhibit K Program Goals Source: KCI Development Program Process Update, Mayor & City Council Business Session, July 21, Prepared for Kansas City Aviation Department by Leigh Fisher and. July 2017 Page 9 of 68

22 Customer Convenience Customer convenience was one of the primary goals of the Exhibit K process. The focus was on providing an efficient process for departing and arriving passengers to get in and get out of the terminal while meeting Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requirements and technological advancements in security, ticketing and bag check. Convenience also referred to sufficient and ample restrooms, comfortable seating and lounges for waiting business passengers and passengers with children, roomy gate areas where people could eat, surf the web, and conduct business. The TDP identified the following modernization elements related to customer convenience. Provide efficient and technologically-advanced facilities that promote passenger processing conveniences Develop a program for improved terminal facilities to provide a high level of air service and customer convenience Improve walking distances between parking, security, gates, and baggage claim areas (minimize walking distances) Provide for convenient passenger access/transfers and minimize walking/ travel distances Passenger-friendly design in terms of flow and way-finding Maximize on-airport parking Provide high level of service at arrivals and departures curbsides Provide secure and non-secure passenger and baggage connectivity Meet demand and provide high level of service for rental car patrons Affordability and Cost-Effective Issues of affordability and cost-effectiveness focused on maximizing the dollars spent to address the future of both customer convenience and operational effectiveness of the KCI terminal facility. The TDP identified the following elements related to issues of affordability and cost-effectiveness for the terminal modernization. Integrate the Terminal development into the existing roadways and regional transportation system Maximize on-airport parking Periodically evaluate a Rough Order of Magnitude to ensure that the Terminal development is a financially feasible plan Develop a cost-effective and realistically affordable plan Employ common-use systems to minimize capital and operating costs Maximize non-aviation related revenue opportunities Maximize eligibility for FAA funding of proposed improvements Maximize concessions revenue July 2017 Page 10 of 68

23 Constructability The goal of constructability (or buildability) was defined as the management of the construction processes from start to finish during the various stages of development. The assessment of this goal involved identifying any obstacles to implementation or interruptions to on-going airport operations. The TDP identified the following elements related to constructability and the terminal modernization. Minimize complexity of construction phasing Maximize the new site potential through a detailed understanding of how the Airport and FAA use the current airfield. Plan facilities that meet or exceed FAA design standards Accommodate airfield vehicle service roads Efficiency Efficiency, as it pertains to the modernization of the KCI terminal facility, was defined as operational efficiency relative to all of the passenger services provided by the airport. Efficiency was assessed based on the level of service to the comfort and convenience of passengers and the reliability and effectiveness of airline operations. This included issues of congestion and providing the space needed to accommodate operations, the processing and waiting time, or the delay incurred by passengers and airlines, convenience, and the operational performance of both the facility and the equipment that is balanced throughout the airport system to provide a constant level of service. The TDP identified the following operational efficiencies for the terminal modernization of KCI. Achieve balanced capacity of gates, terminal processing, and landside facilities Develop operationally efficient design for the airlines Maximize airfield efficiencies Plan facilities that meet a minimum Level of Service C 8 during peak hours Develop operationally efficient design for the airlines Plan facilities to address security requirements and employ emerging technologies that are adaptable to a dynamic security environment 8 Level of Service is a qualitative measure used in relation to the quality of passenger service. The metric is used to analyze space in terminals by categorizing passenger flow and queuing space by quality levels. These measures are based on the performance scale of the terminal to allow passenger to flow freely without building too much or too little space. A Level of Service C is known as an Optimal level of service according to the IATA ADRM guidelines. July 2017 Page 11 of 68

24 Flexibility The flexibility of terminal facilities was defined as the spatial and planning features that enable airport management to change, easily and inexpensively, the configuration of their facility to meet new needs of the airline industry, technology, demand, etc. The TDP included an assessment of planning scenarios that considered KCI s short-term commitments and long-term strategic thinking to gauge what might happen in the future and to identify the best alternative that could best adapt to potential operational changes thereby minimizing the risk of operational obsolescence and optimizing opportunities for adaptation. Plan for flexibility to adapt to changes in the KCI mission with minimal disruption/re-building Plan airfield facilities that accommodate aircraft that regularly use the Airport, both now and in the future Technology The technology issues for planning the KCI terminal facility addressed the ability of alternatives to spatially accommodate the latest in passenger check-in, baggage drops, and security processing. A state-of-the-art technology program was viewed as essential in achieving a progressive solution to maximize operational efficiency and passenger convenience. The TDP defined the technology infrastructure and systems for convenient passenger processing and enhanced security. Incorporate the latest in passenger processing technologies Plan facilities to address security requirements and employ emerging technologies that are adaptable to a dynamic security environment Right-Sized Right-sizing an airport terminal facility includes having the right type of space in the right location at the right size for the service being provided. The TDP achieves this goal in the following manner. Plan facilities that meet a minimum Level of Service C during peak hours Achieve balanced capacity of gates, terminal processing, and landside facilities Provide secure and non-secure passenger and baggage connectivity Accommodate airfield vehicle service roads July 2017 Page 12 of 68

25 3.0 THE The Terminal Planning Team provided the technical planning and conceptual design in support of Exhibit K. The Project Work Plan for the TDP focused on a collaborative stakeholder approach for identifying the development of future terminal facilities at the Airport. This Work Plan included programmatic, conceptual design, and cost estimating components to assist the KCAD and the Airlines to identify a mutually agreed to TDP. As discussed in Section 2.6, Exhibit K Process, that process was tasked with the responsibility of developing an affordable plan to improve the airport terminal facilities with a focus toward customer convenience and access to state-of-the-art technology, improving air service efficiencies while ensuring the facilities provide flexibility for future growth, are right-sized based on the KCI forecast of aviation activity, and can be constructed in a phased manner to minimize disruptions to on-going passengers and airline service. The TDP was the means to conduct the research and analyses and prepare the reports to inform the Exhibit K process about the technical fundamentals and requirements of airport terminal planning and conceptual design. The tasks conducted in the TDP included the preparation of terminal development concepts and capital cost estimates along with performance metrics; produce a draft concept report to address the terminal complex site plan, the terminal building floor plans and sections, airside facilities, landside facilities, and terminal systems all in order to assist the KCAD, the Airlines and City Council to jointly arrive at a final terminal facilities recommendation for the City of Kansas City. To develop the technical planning and conceptual design work products, the requirements of FAA guidance and other applicable planning criteria and specifications for airport terminal facilities were followed. Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 25, Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volumes 1 and 2 ACRP Report 10, Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities ACRP Report 40, Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations ACRP Report 68, Guidebook for Evaluating Terminal Renewal Versus Replacement Options FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/ , Planning and Design Guidelines for Airport Terminal Facilities FAA AC 150/ , Airport Design FAA AC 150/ , General Guidance and Specifications for Aeronautical Surveys: Establishment of Geodetical Control and Submission to the National Geodetic Survey FAA AC 150/ , General Guidance and Specifications for Aeronautical Survey Airport Imagery Acquisition and Submission to the National Geodetic Survey July 2017 Page 13 of 68

26 FAA AC 150/ , General Guidance and Specifications for Submission of Aeronautical Surveys to NGS: Field Data Collection and Geographic Information System (GIS) Standards Other FAA, TRB, or industry reports that relate to the development of the two terminal concept alternative families The passenger terminal planning process identified the important criteria and requirements needed to address emerging trends and to create solutions that best meet the needs for the KCI passengers and airlines. This process involved the collection and analysis of pertinent data to establish facility requirements specific to KCI. Other tasks in this process included the development of a forecast of aviation activity, gate requirements to accommodate the scheduled airline activity and fleet mix, determining space requirements for the terminal interior to accommodate all passenger and airline services, and a design layout and configuration for all components of the terminal facilities. 3.1 TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS The terminal requirements, which were defined early in the planning process, guided the terminal layout and design. These requirements provided the basis for assessing passenger needs, airline services, and facility use. Combined, these factors shaped the planning of the size and configuration of the KCI Terminal complex. Forecast of aviation activity traffic projections influenced the planning for a single consolidated terminal or a multiple-unit terminal - Airline input (operations, type of aircraft, marketing strategy) - City-pairs (airline destinations) - Operations (schedules and aircraft fleet) - Passengers (domestic and/or international) - Annual demand (airline activity forecast) Gate requirements - Common-use airline facilities, meaning airlines physically share computers, check-in counters and boarding gates - Arrival and Departure functions Space requirements - Common-use airline facilities, meaning airlines physically share computers, check-in counters and boarding gates - Type of facilities: ticketing, security, lounges, corridors, restrooms, arrivals, concessions, bag claim, baggage makeup, airline operations, nonpublic areas, terminal functions July 2017 Page 14 of 68

27 Major Renovation (MR) versus New Terminal (NT) concepts - MR: design required utilization of as much of the existing terminal facilities as practical while taking into account the need to address state-of-the-art passenger processing and aircraft maneuverability standards - NT: design required facilities to be right-sized within the site available following the demolition of existing Terminal A Review and comparison to other airport terminal configurations - Examined similarities or differences in other airport terminals as compared to the KCI existing layout - Distinguished between long-term patterns of terminal configurations versus short term trends in design that may deviate from what is in the best interest of passengers and airlines - Applied what was learned from these comparisons to aid in making a decision about KCI terminal design FORECAST APPROACH The KCI TDP forecasts were prepared using a collaborative process that considered key issues and trends affecting future aviation demand at KCI and the Kansas City metropolitan region, 9 coordination with representatives of KCAD and Airline-Airport Affairs Committee, 10 and a review of the historical KCI enplaned passengers and passenger airline operations. This multi-tiered approach and bottom-up analysis of city-pair markets is depicted in Exhibit 4, Forecast Approach. The data collection and forecast development began with input from the airlines about future schedules and fleet mix. The bottom-up analysis of city-pairs addressed the existing markets served from KCI and the potential for new market service based on airline input. This analysis resulted in the development of future schedules for 2025 and The Kansas City metropolitan region is also referred to as the Airport service region and includes a primary and secondary area. The primary area is defined as the Kansas City Combined Statistical Area (the Kansas City CSA) which includes 22 counties, 9 counties in Kansas and 13 counties in Missouri. The secondary area includes many of the counties surrounding the 22-county primary area and is defined by the location of and driving distance to other air carrier airports, as well as by the availability, price, and quality of airline service at those other airports. 10 Technical Memorandum Passenger Airline Activity Forecasts. Development of Terminal Program, Kansas City International Airport, Leigh Fisher, October July 2017 Page 15 of 68

28 EXHIBIT 4: Forecast Approach Source: Leigh Fisher, October 2014 Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) passenger airline aircraft operations were derived from the 2014 base year schedule and the future schedules for 2025 and The 2014 base schedule is representative of an average day in the peak month (July). The number of ADPM operations (arrivals and departures) at KCI is forecast to increase from 177 in 2014 to 200 in 2025 and 206 in Similarly, the number of ADPM seats (arriving and departing) at KCI is forecast to increase from 19,253 in 2014 to 24,888 in 2025 and 26,665 in The number of seats in the future schedules reflects an increase in the average size of passenger airline aircraft at KCI (or up-gauging ) based on airline input as well as airline fleets and aircraft orders. Airline network planners 11 were asked to comment on the assumed fleet mix and ADPM departures in comparison with their current and planned operations at KCI. Using this input data, detailed design day schedules were developed for each airline for each forecast year, 2025 and Airline network planners work to optimize an airlines global network to the relevant demand for air travel to make optimal use of key resources (i.e., fleet and crew, manage and evaluate codeshare schedules and changes, adjust aircraft type on existing destinations, and fine-tune schedules to maximize connectivity and/or efficiency). July 2017 Page 16 of 68

29 Four forecast scenarios were developed based on the assumed ADPM operations for 2025 and 2030 and the specific assumptions used in each scenario Baseline, Conservative, Existing, and Optimistic. Baseline (Conservative view of new low-cost carrier (LCC) 12 service): incorporates airline input with a conservative view of the introduction of new LCC service at KCI Conservative (No new LCC service): includes only the planned growth of the airlines serving KCI as of July 2014 Existing (Published 2014 new LCC service): includes only new LCC service published in 2014 airline schedules (5 additional flights in August 2014) Optimistic (Optimistic view of new LCC service): reflects an optimistic view of potential LCC service through 2030 The Leadership Committee then developed the Adopted Forecast, with a compound annual growth rate of 1.9 percent, which falls in the mid-range between the Conservative and Optimistic scenarios. The Adopted Forecast was used to develop the Terminal Program. See Exhibit 5, Forecast Scenarios. EXHIBIT 5: Forecast Scenarios Source: Leigh Fisher, October A low-cost carrier (also known as LCC, discount or budget carrier) is a term referring to airlines with a lower operating cost structure than their competitors. While the term is often applied to any carrier with low ticket prices and limited services, regardless of their operating models, low-cost carriers should not be confused with regional airlines that operate short flights without service, or with full-service airlines offering some reduced fares. July 2017 Page 17 of 68

30 Table 1, Summary of Annual Forecast Scenarios, shows the results for these four scenarios and the Leadership Committee s Adopted Forecast. The Adopted Forecast was used to develop the Terminal Program. As shown in Table 1, the adopted enplaned passenger forecast has a compound annual growth rate of 1.9 percent per year between 2013 and 2030 reflecting continued LCC service in the forecast period with modest growth. This table provides the forecast data for the four forecast scenarios and the Adopted Forecast for enplaned passengers, passenger airline departures, seats, local load factor, and average seats per departure. The enplaned passenger forecast compound annual growth rates for each scenario range from 1.6 percent to 3.0 percent. Passengers are forecast to increase from 4,941,041 (Actual 2013) to 5,993,300 (Conservative scenario 2025) and 7,083,200 (Optimistic scenario 2025). In 2030, the forecast of enplaned passengers shows an increase from Actual 2013 to 6,470,900 (2030 Conservative scenario) and 8,212,900 (2030 Optimistic scenario). The enplaned passenger numbers correlate to an increase in forecast passenger airline departures from 61,587 (Actual 2013) to 66,360 (2025 Conservative) to 69,490 (2025 Leadership Committee s Adopted Forecast) and 75,050 (2025 Optimistic). In 2030, the forecast of passenger airline departures shows an increase from Actual 2013 to 68,450 (2030 Conservative scenario) and 82,350 (2030 Optimistic scenario) KCI FORECAST: GATE REQUIREMENTS The gate demand forecast resulted in requirements for 35 gates over the planning period through 2030, with adaptable terminal core systems sized for future expansion with seven additional gates for a total of 42 gates beyond These 35 gates in include four City gates that are internationally capable allowing for two dependent widebody aircraft and 35 gates sized for KCI s design aircraft, the Boeing /Airbus 321. Other airside elements that resulted from the gate requirements forecast include 19 remain overnight (RON) aircraft parking positions, eliminating aircraft movement conflicts, and an upgrade to the deicing operation and facilities. July 2017 Page 18 of 68

31 TABLE 1: Summary of Annual Forecast Scenarios CAGR = compound annual growth rate LCC = low cost carrier OAG = Official Airline Guide Source: Technical Memorandum Passenger Airline Activity Forecasts. Development of Terminal Program, Kansas City International Airport, Leigh Fisher, October 2014, Table B-1, Summary of Annual Forecast Scenarios, p. B-1 July 2017 Page 19 of 68

32 As discussed in Section 3.1.1, Forecast Approach, the gate requirements analysis was based on the bottom-up analysis of city-pairs that resulted in the distribution of airline operations throughout the day for the future 2025 and 2030 schedules, which remain constant. Exhibit 6, Forecast Gate Requirements, shows the rolling 30-minute demand capacity analysis and the five periods throughout the day where the demand for gates exceeds the 29 gates currently leased (as of 2016). EXHIBIT 6: Forecast Gate Requirements Source: Leadership Committee Recommendation Terminal Modernization Program, City Council Briefing, April 26, Leigh Fisher and. By 2030, five gates would be needed to accommodate the first flights of the day, at approximately 4:50 a.m. The number of gates needed peaks throughout the day at 31 gates around 9:30 a.m., 31 gates around 12:30 p.m., 32 gates around 2:30 p.m., 33 gates around 4:30 p.m., and 34 gates around 5:30 p.m. July 2017 Page 20 of 68

33 3.1.3 EXISTING KCI TERMINAL SPACE VERSUS TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS The amount of existing Terminal space by function was compared to the terminal requirements established to accommodate the forecast future need for curbside, ticket lobby, baggage handling system, security screening checkpoint (SSCP), holdrooms, concessions, baggage claim, and the International Arrivals facility to determine if the existing Terminal could accommodate that need. As shown in Exhibit 7, Existing Space/Terminal Requirements, there is a surplus of 20,890 total square feet when comparing the square footage contained in the two existing Terminals, B and C, currently in operation. EXHIBIT 7: Existing Space/Terminal Requirements Source: Leadership Committee Recommendation Terminal Modernization Program, City Council Briefing, April 26, Leigh Fisher and. While the cumulative totals of Terminals B and C exceed the future required facilities needed to meet demand, it is the specific allocation of space to the critical passenger processing and amenities functions of the terminals that are significantly deficient. Two key areas needed in the future include a post-security departure corridor and an airline club. KCI has neither in its existing Terminal. A post-security departure corridor directly relates to the passenger experience to provide a seamless, freeflowing experience between the security screening checkpoint and the departure gate that includes passenger amenities such as considerations for a concessions and concession seating areas and restrooms. Airline clubs enhance customer service by providing a quiet space to relax or work. July 2017 Page 21 of 68

34 As shown in Exhibit 7, two key functional areas are undersized in the existing Terminal space Post-Security by 83,110 square feet 13 and Bag Claim space by 37,284 square feet; 14 and two key functional areas are oversized for the future forecast need Pre-Security by 98,093 square feet and Non Public Spaces by 66,533 square feet. 15 These discrepancies in size and the location and adjacencies to other functional areas in the existing Terminal space makes the layout of required terminal functions limited, at best, to provide consistent customer service and to enhance the passenger experience TERMINAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS: MAJOR RENOVATION (MR) VERSUS NEW TERMINAL (NT) Terminal facility requirements were developed using the TDP forecasts of future aviation demand (see Section 3.1.1, Forecast Approach). The alternative concepts for major renovation of the existing Terminal (MR) and a new Terminal (NT) were based on these requirements to ensure the concepts addressed the projected higher passenger volumes and airline operations, security concerns, connections between flights, and other passenger services such as walking distance, parking, and concessions. As shown in Exhibit 8, Facility Requirements: MR versus NT, using the space in the existing Terminal to layout the functions needed to accommodate forecast future demand results in 21 percent of the space to go unused (unproductive, non-revenue generating). This is because the structural constraints of the existing Terminal, with immovable concrete piers and narrow corridors, cannot be easily reconfigured to accommodate these functions in the appropriate locations with sufficient access and functional adjacencies. New Terminal construction could right size the facility to meet the forecast demand and locate facilities by function and functionally adjacencies. 13 Post-Security existing square footage totals 105,230. The requirement for Post-Security functions is 188,340 square feet. The shortfall between existing and the requirement is 83,100 square feet. 14 Bag Claim existing square footage totals 90,506. The requirement for Bag Claim functions is 127,790 square feet. The shortfall between existing and the requirement is 37,284 square feet. 15 Non Public Spaces existing square footage totals 289,903. The requirement for Non Public Spaces is 223,370 square feet. The surplus between existing and the requirement is 66,533 square feet. July 2017 Page 22 of 68

35 EXHIBIT 8: Facility Requirements: MR versus NT Source: KCI Development Program Process Update, City Council Meeting, December 10, Leigh Fisher and. A major renovation of the existing Terminal, with three independent buildings operating independently, requires the duplication of functional areas such as restrooms, concessions, building services, circulation corridors, and the resources necessary to respond to peaks in activity at each terminal. This can result in a combined capacity greater than the airport s combined peak facility demand. A new Terminal concept would centralize functions and functional areas so that all passengers and baggage process through a single facility providing opportunities to maximize the use of the facilities and staffing, maximize passenger processing capacity by eliminating duplication of services, minimize staffing requirements for passenger security screening checkpoints, minimize interline connections for passengers and baggage, maximize concession revenue opportunities, simplify passenger wayfinding and ground access infrastructure, and adapts to airline flexibility to meet the changing needs of the airlines (this includes minimizing relocations due to changing code-share alliances and partnership mergers). To meet the future forecast, the terminal facility needs to provide the capability for future expansion of terminal functions and space. The existing Terminal would result in 43 percent of the existing facility going unused while a new Terminal would have 8 percent excess space. Excess unused space results in expenditures for maintenance, security, heating, cooling, etc. for square footage not generating revenue for the airport or the airlines. July 2017 Page 23 of 68

36 3.1.5 COMPARISON OF U.S. AIRPORT TERMINAL CONFIGURATIONS No single airport terminal configuration is best for use by all airports. The needs of passengers and airlines differ from one airport to another and airport security regulations implemented by the TSA created the need to expand airport security facilities. The basic function of an airport terminal is to efficiently link passengers and cargo to the airside and landside components of the airport. Key to that linkage at KCI is the walking distance for passengers from the parking areas through security and to the gate, and upon return from the gate to baggage claim to the parking areas. The Exhibit K process included a review and comparison of other U.S. airport terminal configurations to the existing KCI Terminal facilities (see Exhibit 9, Other Airport Terminal Configurations). This comparison shows how various terminal configurations function as a hub or non-hub, meet the needs of O&D 16 passengers, provides flexibility for future growth (changes in industry), and trendy design versus more functional design. KCI, with its unique three-terminal configuration, has not been duplicated at any other airport. While this configuration provides the KCI O&D passenger easy access to the Terminal (mere steps from the curb to the ticket counter and just a few more steps to security screening checkpoints) three independent terminals equates to three times the energy costs, three times the personnel need to staff the airport, and possibly one-third of anticipated concessions revenue per passenger enplanement because the configuration of the curved concourse makes it difficult for passengers to see a concession around a corner. Of the terminal configurations shown in Exhibit 10, four received awards for passenger experience Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU), John Wayne Orange County Airport (SNA), Austin Bergstrom International Airport (AUS), and Indianapolis International Airport (IND). 16 O&D is defined as Originating and Destination. O & D passengers are arriving and departing from the airport, as opposed to connecting to another destination through the airport. July 2017 Page 24 of 68

37 EXHIBIT 9: Other Airport Terminal Configurations Source: KCI Development Program Process Update, City Council Meeting, December 10, Leigh Fisher and. The RDU terminal area consists of two independent terminals separated by the daily parking garage and the Park RDU Central garage (both within walking distance of Terminals 1 and 2). Because the terminals are not connected, shuttle buses transfer passengers. Terminal 1 serves Southwest Airlines and includes a four-lane security checkpoint, ticketing and baggage claim, ground transportation, with shops and restaurants in both pre- and post-security areas. Terminal 2 serves all other airlines and duplicates the services provided in Terminal 1, which includes security baggage and ticketing, ground transportation, and post-security food and retail outlets. Terminal 2 also has two airline clubs (American Admirals Club and Delta Sky Club). Passengers were impressed by the 13 restaurants and shops and the 10-lane security checkpoint serving a total of 36 gates. 17 RDU received awards from the American Institute of Architects for its commitment to architectural form and function Passengers give sky-high reviews of RDU s Terminal 2. Posted January 23, 2011, Updated January 24, RDU Receives Award for Excellence in Architecture. Posted on February 18, press-release/rdu-receives-award-for-excellence-in-architecture/ July 2017 Page 25 of 68

38 The SNA terminal area is a linear three-terminal complex (Terminal A, B, and C) on two levels (Arrivals lower, Departures upper). Terminal A serves all mainline passenger carriers, Terminal B serves United Airlines, and Terminal C serves two LCCs Frontier Airlines and Southwest Airlines. The upper Departure Level of all three terminals contains security checkpoints, ticketing, and food and shopping. Terminal A has the American Airlines Admirals Club; Terminal B has the United Club. The lower Arrival Level is reached via escalator, elevator, or stairs. It contains the baggage carousels for each terminal, ground transportation, and visitor services. SNA has received numerous awards for engineering, construction, and communications related to the new Terminal C and Parking Structure C. 19 AUS has a single two-level mainline carrier passenger terminal. The Upper Level for departures contains curbside passenger drop-off, airline ticket counters, and security checkpoints. The Lower Level, for arrivals, contains baggage claim, international arrivals, and ground transportation. The terminal is connected via a passenger corridor to the parking garage and rental car ready and return facilities. Most restaurants and concessions are located inside the secured gate areas and both American Airlines and United Airlines operate lounges. Flexible-use gates accommodate both international and domestic flights. AUS also has a secondary terminal used for LLC operations that includes Frontier Airlines and Allegiant Air. This terminal, known as the South Terminal, cannot be accessed from the main terminal except by completely exiting the airport grounds. In 2015, both AUS and IND received the Airports Council International Airport Service Quality Award (North America) for what is described as stellar passenger experience that included dutyfree and restaurants to ambience, cleanliness, courtesy of staff, amenities, and efficiency. 20 AUS received third place honors. The IND terminal facility consists of a two-level main terminal area with four concourses. The upper level contains security, ticketing, and passenger check-in for Departures. Arrivals are on the lower level. Both levels provide concessions, restrooms, shops, and restaurants. Separate passenger and airport employee security checkpoints and a larger passenger check point improved flow and cut waiting time while advanced screening technology reduced the need to open hand baggage. The IND terminal is LEED-certified 21 and described as the country s first sustainable, post 9/11 Greenfield air terminal. IND is celebrated for its sense of place, and for treating its passengers as "guests," much the way the hotel industry 19 A few of these awards include: 2014 Engineering Excellence Awards, 2012 Best Transportation Project Award of Merit for John Wayne Airport Parking Garage Demolition and Terminal C Construction, 2012 Concession Awards 1st Place Best Food and Beverage Program for Medium Sized Airport Which airports have the happiest passengers? Maureen O Hare, CNN. March 3, com/2016/03/02/aviation/airport-service-quality-awards-2015/ 21 The Midfield Terminal earned Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification from the U.S. Green Building Council the first airport in the United States to earn LEED certification for an entire terminal campus. The certification applies to the terminal, concourses, Ground Transportation Center and parking garage, more than 1.2 million square feet. To qualify for certification, LEED recognizes design in energy efficiency, recycling, indoor environmental quality, water efficiency, sustainable site development and innovations. The airport says costs associated with pursuing LEED certification will pay for themselves through substantially reduced aircraft fuel usage and cuts in terminal campus energy and water use. Airport Revenue News, November 16, July 2017 Page 26 of 68

39 does with passengers, routinely comment on the terminal's calm feel and on its efficiency and easy navigation. 22 In 2015, both IND and AUS received the Airports Council International Airport Service Quality Award (North America) for what is described as stellar passenger experience that included duty-free and restaurants to ambience, cleanliness, courtesy of staff, amenities, and efficiency. 23 IND received first place honors. These four airports, regardless of layout and design, cater to the passenger experience and the efficiencies of passenger movement through the terminal to security and to the gate, and providing traveler amenities adjacent to or along the journey from security to gate (restrooms, restaurants, shopping, and ambience). The Exhibit K process considered these elements in the development of the MR and NT alternatives LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS Landside requirements focus on the technical planning aspects of facilities providing the interface between the airport and the regional ground transportation system and passenger connectivity to the airside (concourses and gates) that is seamless and convenient. The TDP technical analysis focused on improving terminal roadways, providing separate curbfronts for Arrivals and Departures to minimize traffic conflicts, reduce congestion, and improve safety, and to increase the number of passenger loading/unloading points. The TDP was based on the requirements data presented in the 2015 Terminal Area Master Plan (TAMP), 24 the Adopted Forecast, and the Exhibit K process. The landside requirements were used to develop and refine the landside alternatives. These requirements determined that an increase in Airport curbside, parking, and facilities would be needed to accommodate the increase in passenger enplanements and operations. Terminal Roadways. Based on the average peak day in July, 25 the inbound and outbound roadways require a minimum of two lanes in each direction to accommodate the increase in roadway volumes. 22 The Next-Generation Airport Is a Destination in Its Own Right Why the new Indianapolis terminal will be a model for others to come. Bonnie Tsui, August 26, /08/the-next-generation-airport-is-a-destination-in-its-own-right/379043/ 23 Which airports have the happiest passengers? Maureen O Hare, CNN. March 3, com/2016/03/02/aviation/airport-service-quality-awards-2015/ 24 Terminal Area Master Plan Advance Terminal Planning Study, Final, April Prepared for the Aviation Department, City of Kansas City, Missouri.. 25 Terminal Area Master Plan Advance Terminal Planning Study, Final, April Prepared for the Aviation Department, City of Kansas City, Missouri.. Section Terminal Roadways, p July 2017 Page 27 of 68

40 Terminal Curbsides. The additional curbside length needed by 2030 is 190 linear feet (total of 595 linear feet) for Departures, 230 linear feet for private vehicle (total of 770 linear feet) Arrivals and 255 linear feet (total of 975 linear feet) for commercial vehicle Arrivals, 26 with separate curbsides for Arrivals and Departures. Public Parking. Public parking will need to increase by approximately 40 percent by The TDP includes a 6,500-space parking structure and a 1,940-space close-in surface parking lot to provide additional parking spaces AIRSIDE REQUIREMENTS Airside requirements focus on the technical planning of facilities that are based on the airside components (gate requirements and the location of aircraft parking positions and supporting taxilanes, aprons, and deicing) to optimize the overall efficiency of the airfield before developing an internal layout of the terminal building, the landside curb, and the terminal roadway systems. The efficiency of airfield operations drive the overall efficiency of passenger processing through the terminal, and the ability of aircraft to park at the terminal and maneuver safely around the airfield in accordance with the FAA taxilane/taxiway requirements. 28 The TDP addressed the airside needs and requirements focusing on the following planning considerations for KCI: 29 Balance airside, terminal and landside capabilities Plan airfield facilities that accommodate the current and future fleet mix Plan airside facilities that meet or exceed FAA design standards and meet relevant codes Maximize airfield efficiencies Provide airside and ramps for efficient operations Maximum flexibility to configure gates to accommodate a wide range of aircraft mixes Integrate support facilities into the plan Accommodate deicing operations on common use pads and/or at the gate or immediately just after push back Configure the airside in coordination with existing and anticipated operations of the adjacent airport taxiway system in order to maximize terminal apron and taxiway system operational efficiency 26 Terminal Area Master Plan Advance Terminal Planning Study, Final, April Prepared for the Aviation Department, City of Kansas City, Missouri.. Section Curbsides, p Terminal Area Master Plan Advance Terminal Planning Study, Final, April Prepared for the Aviation Department, City of Kansas City, Missouri.. Section Public Parking, p Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 25, Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1, Section II.1.1 Airside Terminal Facilities, pp KCI TDP Airside Workshop, Kansas City Aviation Department, October 8, July 2017 Page 28 of 68

41 Provide sufficient taxilane space and aircraft engine start up positions to facilitate independent aircraft circulation and maneuvering while providing maximum operational efficiency Maximize the potential of the site to provide safe, flexible, efficient and integrated operations of terminal building, apron/stand area, taxilane system, hardstand aprons, service roads, adjacent taxiway system, and airport service road Provide sufficient apron area to stage required Ground Service Equipment (GSE), as well as other GSE storage areas Provide defined roadways for service and GSE vehicle circulation around the perimeter of the terminal facility Along with the airside planning issues, the phasing of projects that could affect airside operations were considered to preserve the normal operation of gates and associated facilities to maintain an adequate level of service for the Airlines and to minimize the extent of impacts to airside operations during all construction activities. 3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES The TDP technical planning and conceptual design considered two families of alternatives to meet the Exhibit K Program Goals: (1) Major Renovations (MR): Alternatives that preserved the existing facility and reused the existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible. (2) New Terminal (NT): Alternatives that focused on a new building footprint with new infrastructure. The Exhibit K Program Goals were used to develop the MR and NT alternatives (see Exhibit 3, Exhibit K Program Goals). All alternatives had to be affordable with a focus toward customer convenience and access to state-of-the-art technology, address improving air service efficiencies, ensure flexibility for future growth, provide right-sized facilities to accommodate the KCI forecast of aviation activity, and constructed with minimal disruption to passenger services and airline operations. Doing nothing was not an option ATTRIBUTES OF THE MR ALTERNATIVES In developing the MR Alternatives the planning approach was to reuse and repurpose where possible any of the existing apron, terminal and landside facilities that could be adapted to provide adequate facilities to meet more current day airport operational standards. All MR Alternative site and building plans needed to provide appropriately sized and configured functional areas to meet the 2025 forecast demands and Exhibit K Program Goals while also providing the flexibility to meet future capacity expansion needs. The MR attributes typically included; Reuse, to the maximum extent possible, the existing central processors (CP), aprons and landside components July 2017 Page 29 of 68

42 Consolidation of ticketing, baggage and SSCP functions in order to maximize operational efficiency as a benefit to passenger convenience Re-purposing the existing horseshoe terminals while trying to achieve many of the operational attributes similar those provided in the NT Alternatives. When attempting to reuse existing spaces within the existing building footprint, there were inherent constraints in meeting demand driven requirements and operational efficiency that included limitations to size, functional adjacencies and configuration geometry. Each of the three existing KCI terminal buildings has structural constraints that include its concrete foundation walls and structural support columns that cannot be moved since they are integral to the structural integrity of the building roof system. These structural constraints significantly impact the ability to readjust and change the size and configuration of interior spaces. The curvilinear geometry of all three terminal buildings further constrain the ability to change and adapt space to today s more rectilinear functions such as TSA security screening checkpoint lanes and moving walkways. On the apron, the single taxilane circulation behind the aircraft gate parking positions at each existing unit Terminal and its separation distance to the existing taxiways makes any expansion toward the airside unachievable. On the landside it would be difficult but not impossible to gain some limited terminal expansion but at a high capital cost and with significant impacts to on-going roadway and parking operations ATTRIBUTES OF THE NT ALTERNATIVES In developing the NT Alternatives, the planning approach was to use the currently vacant Terminal A location to provide entirely new apron, terminal and landside facilities to meet current day airport operational standards. All NT Alternative site and building plans needed to provide appropriately sized and configured functional areas to meet the 2025 forecast demands and Exhibit K Program Goals while also providing the flexibility to meet future capacity expansion needs. Most NT Alternative attributes centered around providing a new single consolidated Terminal with the following attributes: Dual taxi-lanes for each aircraft parking position to maximize aircraft maneuverability Double-loaded concourses (i.e., aircraft gates on each side of the concourse) Consolidated ticketing, baggage and SSCP 30 functions that maximize operational efficiency Reuse of some of the existing Terminal roadway system A dual level curb front that separates Arrival and Departure traffic A single centralized public parking garage Minimized walking distances 30 Security Screening Checkpoint (SSCP) July 2017 Page 30 of 68

43 Reuse existing Terminal B Garage for employee parking thereby reducing the existing employee busing operations The construction of a new facility provided opportunities to allocate the right-sized space for each functional use based on demand driven requirements and then arranging them into the best functional adjacencies. A new single Terminal configuration eliminated the need to duplicate facilities and staffing, security screening checkpoints, concessions, and would simplify passenger wayfinding and ground access infrastructure. All of which affects the efficiencies of passenger movement through the Terminal and the operating and maintenance costs to the Airport and the airlines INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES A number of design charrettes were conducted with the Leadership Committee and Terminal Planning Team (see Exhibit 1, Exhibit K Planning Team). The early objectives of these charrettes were to broadly review all options identified in earlier planning studies and to group the options into families based on the common elements among the multiple site diagrams for each MR and NT alternative. The Terminal Planning Team provided a summary matrix of program requirements by function for 2014 existing conditions (excluding closed Terminal A), 2025 demand levels, 2030 demand levels, and an Ultimate build-out of 42 gates that was the basis for the MR and NT Alternatives development. Exhibit 10, of Terminal Planning Approach, shows that the screening process started with 33 alternatives (15 MR alternatives and 18 NT alternatives) which were refined and rescreened to select 12 alternatives (five MR alternatives and seven NT alternatives) for additional analysis. At the design charrette conducted on December 17/18, 2014, the Leadership Committee reviewed site diagrams, schematic options, and advanced alternative developments with the goal of screening 12 alternatives (previously screened from the original 33 alternatives) to a final four that would be carried forward to the next level of analysis (two MRs and two NTs). This conceptual review and evaluation, in conjunction with a qualitative evaluation based on industry experience, was used to arrive at a collaborative consensus of all charrette participants to select two MR alternatives and two NT alternatives. These would then be analyzed further to select the recommended terminal development alternative per the Exhibit K process. 31 This consensus decision was supported by the Leadership Committee. 31 KCI Final Report and Recommendations Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City Airport Terminal Advisory Group, May 30, Appendix F, Exhibit K Terminal Project Procedures, Phase I-Development of Terminal Program & Alternatives. Section F. Terminal Alternative Selection, p. 5 of 7 and p. 6 of 7. July 2017 Page 31 of 68

44 EXHIBIT 10: of Terminal Planning Approach Source: KCI Development Program Process Update, City Council Meeting, December 10, Leigh Fisher and REFINEMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVES The further refinement of alternatives blended the best elements of the 12 alternatives with similar layouts. The Terminal Planning Team provided the requested additional information to the Leadership Committee and airline representatives at the design charrette conducted in January 2015, that focused on aircraft parking, RONs 32, taxilanes around the terminal, vehicular parking, roadways, and facilities (Terminal B Garage, aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) station, taxiways, etc.) and walking distances. Further analysis to refine the alternatives was presented at Planning Charrette #2. The Leadership Committee and representatives from the airlines participated in Charrette # 2 (February 2015). The primary objective was to obtain additional comprehensive input from the airlines for the two MR and two NT alternatives before developing cost estimates. The terminal space requirements (gross terminal area) and number of gates were reviewed for 2014 existing conditions through the Ultimate build-out. 2014: 773,850 square feet and 30 gates (in the two existing Terminals) 2025: 735,290 square feet and 35 gates 32 RON is defined as a Remain Overnight parking position. The aircraft is parked in an off contact gate position until needed. The use of RONs allows for higher utilization of contact gates. July 2017 Page 32 of 68

45 2030: 752,960 square feet and 35 gates Ultimate: 887,950 square feet and 42 gates The alternatives were designed to accommodate the 2025 requirements for terminal facilities and gates and identify opportunities to accommodate the Ultimate build-out envelope to support the ultimate requirements of 42 gates. Check-in and baggage functions were the primary drivers for the additional Ultimate build-out square footage. The terminal requirements matrix was updated to reflect the unbuilt space for each alternative. This data was used to identify and evaluate the capital and operating expenses. Given the renewed interest of the TSA in screening all employees, it was decided that all alternatives would include space for the separate screening of employees and concession goods. In the existing Terminals, it is physically impossible to do because of the current concourse and facility configuration. In April 2015, Charrette #3 was conducted as a workshop for the Leadership Committee to review the rough order of magnitude cost estimate. The cost estimates were prepared using 2015 dollars and included escalation. There were multiple goals for this workshop: Review the base assumptions (scope of work, project limits) of the cost estimate for the terminal, airside, and landside facilities Review the multiplier percentages versus the value of contractor costs, soft costs, and contingencies Reduce the initial $1.2 billion estimated program cost by $300 million The Leadership Committee and airline representatives met again in May 2015 at Design Charrette #4 to review the revised cost estimates and the independent review of the cost estimates, which included the structure and completeness of the estimate and the appropriateness of the unit costs utilized to forecast the construction costs. Further cost reductions included changes to the airside, landside, and terminal design. The apron taxi areas were minimized, the terminal footprint was compacted, and the amount of elevated roadways was reduced. Through the exchange of information and assessments made in this charrette, it was determined there was no further value in pursuing the MR alternatives due to cost, funding, and operational shortfalls. The Leadership Committee decided no further planning moneys would be expended towards further study of the MR alternatives. In December 2015, the Leadership Committee presented an update on the status and findings of the Exhibit K process to the Kansas City Council. Questions were raised by the Council members on the following items and the Terminal Planning Team initiated addition analysis to provide responses. Provide more background information on the TSA security checkpoint guidelines. Is there a way to expand the existing terminals without having to develop a new central processor and have two levels? July 2017 Page 33 of 68

46 Consider a checklist of infrastructure that needs to be upgraded and the associated costs, e.g., roadways, utilities, waterproofing the terminal walls, deicing, hydrant fueling, etc. Were MR alternatives created without dual level roadways? Kansas City-based Crawford Architects, working at the request of a City Councilwoman, offered a proposal that would phase in renovations to the existing Terminals over time the Crawford Plan that would be cheaper than a new Terminal. According to Crawford Architects, renovating Terminals A and B would cost about $330 million each, cheaper than the nearly $1 billion figure to build a new single terminal. The Airline Technical Review (ATR) review of the Crawford Plan raised a number of issues. These issues, primarily economic, included: Understated cost estimates Elements of the proposed renovation would have 30-year life but not all projects align for the purposes of tax-exempt bond principal amortization Unlikely that the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) could be increased to cover the expense of the renovation Ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) expense would be costlier than the other MR alternatives due the space needed to meet the facility requirements No provision to refurbish the existing aging infrastructure Other ATR comments addressed insufficient garage parking, less efficient for airline operations, and the longer construction period. It was also determined that the renovation proposal failed to meet the needs for better customer service and adequately accommodate future growth. The Leadership Committee viewed the Crawford Plan as not working as well as some of the other plans studied and that the proposed renovation cost would actually be closer to $984 million, not the estimated $672 million total. The signatory airlines using KCI, having gone through a two-year process with the City evaluating major renovations and new terminals, concluded they were in favor of building a new terminal because the cost would be lower than renovating the existing Terminal facilities and the major renovations were much more difficult to implement than even the airlines had originally anticipated. 3.3 EVALUATION OF ALL ALTERNATIVES The evaluation of the all of the TDP alternatives was inclusive of the findings and analyses of the previous studies, processes, stakeholder coordination efforts, and input and comments from City Council and the public. These studies and processes included the 2008 KCI Master Plan Study Update, the Airport Terminal Advisory Process, the Advance Terminal Planning Study, the Airport Terminal Advisory Group (ATAG), and the Exhibit K process. July 2017 Page 34 of 68

47 3.3.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA DEFINITIONS As depicted in Exhibit 3, Exhibit K Program Goals, the evaluation criteria were based on the definitions of these goals: Customer Convenience, Affordability and Cost-Effective, Constructability, Efficiency, Flexibility, Technology, and Right-Sized. CUSTOMER CONVENIENCE Acceptable walking distance Passenger flows and convenience Baggage handling system efficiency AFFORDABILITY/COST-EFFECTIVENESS Rough order of magnitude capital costs Operating costs Maintenance Costs CONSTRUCTABILITY Logistics of construction Impact to schedule based on phasing Ability to redirect project based on industry changes Potential risks to the program EFFICIENCY Airside Aircraft gate parking Aircraft RON parking Aircraft gate use flexibility Apron/taxilane efficiency Taxi distance from aircraft gates to runway ends and exits Incremental airside expansion Improves aircraft deicing operations Provides efficient airside snow removal Support Facilities Sustainability Land Use Efficiency of terminal support facilities to terminal area Maintain critical existing airport support facilities Provides efficient landside snow removal Siting principles of sun and wind Design potential to meet City s sustainability goals Effective utilization of land for aviation needs Potential collateral development options RIGHT-SIZED Terminal Functionality Airport terminal configurations Airport related functions Future expansion potential Landside Roadway Parking requirements/parking capacities July 2017 Page 35 of 68

48 3.3.2 EVALUATION PROCESS During the charrette process, all of the alternatives were evaluated by the Leadership Committee using the evaluation criteria to meet the Exhibit K Program Goals. To organize the evaluation process and to address the potential for over design in the alternatives, the MR alternatives were evaluated separately from the NT alternatives. The evaluation of MR alternatives focused on the defining aspects of these alternatives; the usage of existing facilities, the ability to integrate within the existing airport framework, and cost implications of a major renovation. The evaluation of NT alternatives focused on the major characteristics of a new Terminal; the impact of construction on the existing airport operations, the amalgamation of new and existing facilities, and the cost of a new Terminal. Exhibit 11, Two-Track Terminal Evaluation Process, depicts the screening and evaluation of alternative through the design charrettes. Starting with 27 alternatives, the number of practicable alternatives was reduced to 12 alternatives (Charrette #1), to five (Charrette #2), to four (Charrette #3). The alternatives continued to be refined throughout this process by the Leadership Committee and conceptual site plans were developed for the final four alternatives. Exhibit 11: Two-Track Terminal Evaluation Process Source: KCI Development Program Process Update, City Council Meeting, December 10, Leigh Fisher and. July 2017 Page 36 of 68

49 The evaluation results for the 12 alternatives from Charrette #1 (see Exhibit 10, of Terminal Planning Approach), are provided in Table 2, Charrette #1 Summary Evaluation of Major Renovation (MR) and New Terminal (NT) Alternatives. This table summarizes the observations and associated pros and cons of the charrette participants. TABLE 2: Charrette #1 Summary Evaluation of Major Renovation (MR) and New Terminal (NT) Alternatives MAJOR RENOVATION (MR) ALTERNATIVES Description Pros Cons MR2 Convert existing Terminals A/B into secure concourses, retain existing Terminals A/B parking garages and aircraft aprons, construct single CP, surface parking in front of CP Few conflicts for aircraft pushback Preserves existing Terminals A/B and the garages Preserves Terminals A/B aircraft aprons (fuel pits would need to be moved), based on discussion on aircraft sizes and new hold-room layouts Requires 65 percent more space than is required due to inefficient concourse configuration Baggage distribution times were not acceptable due to the tug driving distances to far gates Could be longest walking distances of MRs Requires curbside to be extended to meet facility requirements curbside length (900 feet). Three separate parking garages would be needed; not ideal, could be confusing rather than having single parking structure More convenient surface parking would erode garage parking revenues Requires second most renovation Scattered layout of concessions Possible pushback issues in apron culde-sac Gate congestion in the interior throat, mixed with GSE traffic would cause delays and operationally unacceptable MR4 Preserves old Terminal C horseshoe with linear double-loaded concourses extending from each horseshoe end, single CP constructed on D site to avoid impacting Terminal C operations, single parking garage in front of CP Few conflicts for aircraft pushback Can reuse Terminal C and its apron (with fuel pit relocations) Most efficient bag operations of MR alternatives Least expensive MR alternative Could be second shortest walking distance of MRs Essentially a new build; very little preserved from old terminals yet constrained by old site conditions and footprint resulting in overbuilding Cannot reuse Terminals A/B aprons Results in largest terminal footprint (1.3 million square feet) No ability to reuse existing Terminal garages Vast unused space in center of horseshoe Longest taxi distance of all options from the current primary runway (1L/19R) Roadway access and curbside supporting a CP in this location would eliminate the double-loaded concourses Gates on the back side of the concourses present some operational pushback issues for the airlines. July 2017 Page 37 of 68

50 TABLE 2 (cont d): Charrette #1 Summary Evaluation of Major Renovation (MR) and New Terminal (NT) Alternatives MAJOR RENOVATION (MR) ALTERNATIVES Description Pros Cons MR5 Convert portions of existing Terminals A/B into secure concourses connected by a single new CP to consolidate ticket/bag/sscp, large parking garage in front of CP Few conflicts for aircraft pushback Retain existing Terminals A/B aircraft aprons (with relocated fuel pits) Adequate curbside due to length of CP Could be shortest walking distance of MRs Best wayfinding for arrivals/departures Improved concessions to be consolidated Cannot reuse existing Terminals A/B garages ARFF station would need to be replaced Challenging to phase/construct due to need to maintain roadway access to Terminal C during construction Long drive for service vehicles from the processor to the ends Possible pushback conflicts with existing Taxiway D Baggage system and distribution was marginally acceptable Could be challenging to phase and construct MR6 Convert existing Terminals A/B into secure concourses, each with a CP constructed in middle of the horseshoe extending into roadway, new garages built on site of existing garages that must be several levels higher than existing garages due to the reduced footprint to provide space or the CP Few conflicts for aircraft pushback Slightly shorter bag tows than single CP options Second least expensive option Requires two CPs Requires two bag systems Need to demolish and rebuild smaller Terminal A/B garages that would tower above existing garages to meet space requirements with challenging helices for level changes Retain only the shell of existing terminal, everything else would need to be demolished Possible pushback issues in apron cul-de-sac Possible pushback conflicts with existing Taxiway D Second longest walking distance of MRs Poor concession design reduces revenue potential and customer service Two terminals would require duplication of some systems Challenges for a two bag systems to merge Expansion beyond 42 gates will be challenging MR9 Reuse portions of all three existing terminals, which would be converted into secure concourses, with two CPs linking Terminals A/B and Terminals B/C Few conflicts for aircraft pushback Can retain existing garages Requires two CPs Most expensive option Too much space Long walking distances Do not need all gates Concessions are scattered Wayfinding could be challenging RON positioning near the terminal would be challenging July 2017 Page 38 of 68

51 TABLE 2 (cont d): Charrette #1 Summary Evaluation of Major Renovation (MR) and New Terminal (NT) Alternatives NEW TERMINAL (NT) ALTERNATIVES Description Pros Cons NT1 Three-pier concourse with double-loaded concourses connected to head-house by above ground stem Preserves ARFF Aircraft visible from front door Terminal phasing is possible Allows expansion beyond 42 gates Potential aircraft staging/deicing within the cul-de-sacs Aircraft pushback conflicts Difficult for ramp cleaning and snow removal Two throats Concourses too spread out No frontal gates, passengers cannot see the aircraft NT3 T concourse with slightly angled ends. Potential variation to straighten T and bring closer to head-house NT4 H concourse with single-loaded frontal piers and double-loaded outer piers NT5 Sideways U concourse with head-house in site D near ConRAC; one concourse single-loaded one concourse double loaded NT6 Y or H concourse with single-loaded frontal piers and double loaded middle and outer piers Few conflicts for aircraft pushback Preserves ARFF station Efficient concessions locations Easy gate expansion Aircraft visible from front door More space for aircraft pushback in middle of U apron RONs in close proximity to terminal Aircraft visible from front door Terminal phasing is possible with this layout Aircraft visible from front door Centralize baggage system potential Fewer conflicts for aircraft pushback than angled alternatives Close to ConRAC Preserves ARFF Good reuse of Site D Terminal phasing is possible with this layout Less impact to existing operations during construction Centralized concessions very efficient and provide good synergies and nodes Second shortest walking distances Centralize baggage handling for airlines Terminal phasing possible with this layout Future expansion easily addressed Aircraft visible from front door Might be able preserve ARFF Snow removal Close RON parking for staging Possible longer walking distances than some options Aircraft pushback issues at the neck of terminal ARFF station would need to be replaced Left frontal pier gates would eliminate B garage, but there might be ways to save it (i.e., retaining wall) Snow removal could be difficult Concessions could be scattered Walking distances longer than other alternatives Larger apron footprint Worst for airline airside operations (bag operations, etc.) Most square footage (therefore cost to build/operate) Second longest walking distances Transitional site issue (part 77) with ATCT Changes runway use/noise contours Requires moving walkways on concourses Aircraft not visible from front door Difficult for snow operations, long dead-end New entry roads and infrastructure needed Concessions scattered within terminal Might not be able to save B garage (needs further review) Airlines might have issues with pushbacks Might be able preserve ARFF Some airside impacts to B during construction July 2017 Page 39 of 68

52 TABLE 2 (cont d): Charrette #1 Summary Evaluation of Major Renovation (MR) and New Terminal (NT) Alternatives NEW TERMINAL (NT) ALTERNATIVES Description Pros Cons NT8 Single linear, island concourse served by 675-foot underground tunnel (ATL alternative without people mover) Fewest conflicts for aircraft pushback Most efficient for airline operations Could save B garage Possible smallest footprint for a new terminal Better concession locations Terminal Phasing possible with this layout Longest walking distances Tunnels are expensive to build and maintain; issues when need to close Issues with FIS processing/customer impact Aircraft not visible from front door Probable relocation of the ARFF Little sense of arrival with aircraft nearby NT9 Reindeer concourse with two Y piers off head-house Shortest walking distances Least square footage (therefore cost to build/operate) Can avoid moving sidewalks Most concession potential with nodes Aircraft visible from front door Improved baggage handling for airlines Terminal phasing possible with this layout Future expansion easily addressed Close RON parking for staging Possible Aircraft pushback conflicts, but less than with NT1 and NT4 Possible more difficult for ramp cleaning and snow removal More wayfinding challenges Some airside impacts to B during construction Notes: Source: ARFF = Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting CP = central processors FIS = Federal Inspection Services GSE = Ground Support Equipment RON = Remain Overnight SSCP = security screening checkpoint Leigh Fisher. July 2017 Page 40 of 68

53 3.4 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS FOR FINAL FOUR ALTERNATIVES The evaluation of the alternatives had been a comparative process, categorizing the MR alternatives into one design group and the NT alternatives into another. Alternatives MR A and MR B were the amalgamation of several alternatives with refinements as the conceptual planning went forward. Alternatives NT A and NT B were also a combination of several alternatives with additional refinements. Both NT alternatives used the Terminal A site because the site has the largest east to west axis from the existing FAA Air Traffic Control Tower facilities within the terminal core area and was available for potential construction since Terminal A was closed during January This land parcel allowed for the most flexibility for airside operations and terminal configurations. The Charrette #1 process identified five alternatives that met the Exhibit K Program Goals two MR alternatives (MR5 and MR6) and three NT alternatives (a hybrid of the NT3 and NT8 alternatives, a hybrid of the NT4 and NT9 alternatives, and the NT6 alternative). All alternatives continued to be refined by the Terminal Planning Team for further analysis in Charrette #2. Specific refinements to the two NT hybrid alternatives (NT3/8 and NT4/9) included: A site plan to show the aircraft parking, RONs, taxilanes around the terminal, vehicular parking, roadways, and existing facilities adjacent to the terminal site (i.e., Terminal B Garage, ARFF station, taxiways) Conceptual level plans of the departure and arrival levels (Levels 1 and 2) Cross sections showing the heights of each floor of the terminal Comparison of the rough estimate of space planned in the terminal design to the terminal requirements for 2025 and 2030 demand levels Conceptual level phasing plans to ensure the terminal can be constructed while maintaining current airport operations Aircraft apron operations for pushbacks and jet blast Average, minimum, and maximum estimated walking distances for departures and arrivals based on the unassisted distance/time (without moving walkways) from every other gate instead of every fifth gate as originally measured in the analysis July 2017 Page 41 of 68

54 At a second meeting for the Charrette #1 process, the charrette participants further screened blended alternatives NT3/8 and NT4/9 and a modified version of the refined NT6 alternative. Table 3, Charrette #1 Alternatives that Net Exhibit K Program Goals, shows which of the Exhibit K Program Goals were met by these alternatives. It was decided that Alternative NT3/8 be eliminated for two reasons despite being the most operationally efficient for the airlines. The first being to avoid the expense of connecting international arrival gates on the airside concourse via a long sterile corridor to the Federal Inspection Services (FIS) in the head-house and the associated lower level of customer service. The second reason being to avoid long walking distances by having all 35 gates located on a single airside concourse. The Terminal Planning Team was directed to further refine blended Alternative NT4/9 and refined Alternative NT6 for discussion at Charrette #2. TABLE 3: Charrette #1 Alternatives that Met Exhibit K Program Goals Goals MR5 MR6 NT3/8 NT4/9 NT6 Customer Convenience Affordability and Cost-Effective Constructability Efficiency Flexibility Technology Right-Sized Source: Revisit of KCI Terminal Design Charrette #1, Kansas City International Airport (KCI), Kansas City Aviation Department (KCAD), January 15, The screening of alternatives in the Charrette #2 process yielded four alternatives, the two best MR alternatives and the two best NT alternatives for further refinement and evaluation. To separate these alternatives from the previous evaluation screening processes and to simplify the alternative nomenclature, new names were assigned to these MR and blended NT alternatives. Alternative MR6 MR A Alternative MR5 MR B Alternative NT6:NT3/8 NT A Alternative NT4/9 NT B The refinement of these alternatives for the Charrette #3 process included the development of conceptual site plans and full program cost estimates. Operations and maintenance expense estimates were not developed for this financial modeling exercise. Funding eligibility for Airport Improvement Program (AIP), PFC, TSA, and Customer Facility Charge (CFC) (if applicable) were considered. July 2017 Page 42 of 68

55 3.4.1 ALTERNATIVE MR A Alternative MR A has been reviewed in several forms over the past 20 years as a possible transition of the existing Terminals as a means to bring the facilities up to more current airport industry performance standards. As shown in Exhibit 12, Alternative MR A Conceptual Site Plan, includes the reuse of two of the existing Terminal structures as two separate CP terminals, some of the terminal approach and recirculation roadways, and aircraft aprons. Terminal For MR A, the structural framework of Terminals A and B would be reused for the airside functions while new CPs would be constructed to accommodate all passenger processing functions. In order to gain the width necessary to build the two new CPs, portions of the existing Garage A and B parking structures that are directly across from the existing Terminals would need to be demolished to allow for the construction of new two level curbs and roadways. Domestic passenger and baggage functions would be split between the two terminals except that international passenger processing would only be located in Terminal B. The current interiors of Terminals A and B would be demolished leaving the concrete structural columns, roof and floor plates. These building shells would then be used to accommodate concourse functions, such as gates, holdrooms, public circulation, public restrooms and concessions on the departures level and airline operations space on the apron level. Landside - A new dual level roadway for MR A would allow for the separation of Arrivals and Departures passenger traffic with passenger and baggage check-in on the upper level and baggage claim on the lower level. The existing International Circle would serve as the primary entry/exit roadway to the terminal area and each unit terminal would have a new garage directly across from the newly constructed CP and curbs. Airside MR A reuses the existing Terminal A and B aircraft aprons. Reusing the existing Terminal building footprints however maintains many of the current inefficiencies of the single loaded concourse arrangement and the inadequate operational characteristics of a single taxilane behind the gates and in some instances, pushbacks onto active taxiways and into the shared airside cul-de-sac between the two terminals. MR A provides the needed 35 aircraft gates for 2025/2030 and 42 gates for beyond 2030 horizon, the 43 rd aircraft would require a third unit terminal. Additionally, while retaining the existing apron is a cost savings, both the hydrant fuel lines and fuel pits, along with the main storm drainage line, would need to be removed and replaced. Cost - The overall capital cost for MR-A, in 2015 dollars, was estimated as $1.191 billion. Implementation The approach for constructing MR A would start with the reconfiguring of existing but vacant Terminal A and the building of a new CP and its curbs, roadway and garage. All Terminal B operations would then be transferred into the new Terminal leaving Terminal B vacant for a similar reconfiguration and of a second new CP at Terminal B. All Terminal C operations would then be transferred in the new Terminal B. While a relative straightforward implementation, it would require new large periods of July 2017 Page 43 of 68

56 construction and no separate transfers of airline operations with a lengthy period of time that certain airlines would need to wait a much longer period time to benefit from occupying the new facilities. Exhibit 12: Alternative MR A Conceptual Site Plan Source: PGAL, Wellner Architects May 7, July 2017 Page 44 of 68

57 3.4.2 ALTERNATIVE MR B Alternative MR B creates a new consolidated CP Terminal situated between existing Terminals A and B. MR B reuses two of the existing Terminal structures primarily as airside concourses, some of the terminal approach and recirculation roadways, and some of the aircraft aprons. See Exhibit 13, Alternative MR B Conceptual Site Plan. Terminal In a similar manner to MR A, MR B reuses the structural framework of existing Terminals A and B for the airside functions but rather connected to a single consolidated CP terminal that accommodates all of domestic and international passenger and baggage processing functions. The current interiors of Terminals A and B would be demolished leaving the concrete structural columns, roof and floor plates to house concourse functions, such as gates, holdrooms, public circulation, public restrooms and concessions on the departures level and airline operations space on the apron level. Landside - A newly constructed dual level roadway for MR B, built between existing Terminals A and B, would allow for the separation of Arrivals and Departures passenger traffic with passenger and baggage check-in on the upper level and baggage claim on the lower level. The existing International Circle road would serve as the primary entry/exit roadway to the new dual level terminal curbs. The new Terminal would have three garages; one new central structural parking garage and portions of existing Garage A and Garage B. Airside MR B reuses much of the existing Terminal A and B aircraft aprons in a similar manner to MR A. Reusing the existing Terminal building footprints however maintains the same inefficiencies as MR A including the single loaded concourse arrangement and the inadequate operational characteristics of a single taxilane behind the gates and in some instances, pushbacks onto active taxiways. MR B provides more than the needed 35 aircraft gates for 2025/2030 and 42 gates for beyond 2030 horizon but the 43 th aircraft would require opening up another new unit terminal. Additionally, while retaining the existing apron is a cost savings, both the hydrant fuel lines and fuel pits, along with the main storm drainage line, would need to be removed and replaced. Cost - The estimated cost for MR-B, in 2015 dollars, is $1.049 billion. Implementation Constructing MR-B during on-going operations was considered to be problematic. July 2017 Page 45 of 68

58 Exhibit 13: Alternative MR B Conceptual Site Plan Source: PGAL, Wellner Architects May 7, July 2017 Page 46 of 68

59 3.4.3 ALTERNATIVE NT A Alternative NT A as shown in Exhibit 14, Alternative NT A Conceptual Site Plan, consists of a new single rectilinear terminal that contains all passenger and baggage processing in one CP with a dual level curb, new arrival and departure roadways, a new large public parking garage and new aircraft parking aprons. Terminal NT A consisting of a single CP with two single-loaded landside concourses extending from each side of the CP and one double-loaded airside concourse reached via an above ground concourse connector with moving walkways. Domestic and International passengers and bags are both processed within this single CP that expedites connections. Landside - A new dual level roadway for NT A would allow for the separation of Arrivals and Departures vehicle traffic with passenger and baggage checkin on the upper level and baggage claim on the lower level. The existing International Circle would serve as the primary entry/exit roadway to the terminal area and would have a new garage directly across from the newly constructed CP and curbs. Garage B will be reused for employee parking eliminating the need to bus employees from the remote employee lot. Airside The new apron for NT A allows for dual taxilane paths to and from each aircraft gate and no gate is restricted by any adjacent gate when being pushed back by a tug for departure and has no pushbacks into active taxiways. NT A provides 35 aircraft gates to meet 2025/2030 demand and can be expanded in various ways to meet the 42 gates for the beyond 2030 horizon with no difficulty in expanding well beyond more than 42 gates. Cost include new hydrant fueling and storm drainage. Cost - The estimated cost for NT-A, in 2015 dollars, is $964 million. Implementation Constructing NT-A on the currently vacant Terminal A site allows for minimum disruption to the existing on-going Terminals B and C vehicle and passenger operations. July 2017 Page 47 of 68

60 Exhibit 14: Alternative NT A Conceptual Site Plan Source:, PGAL, May 7, July 2017 Page 48 of 68

61 3.4.4 ALTERNATIVE NT B Alternative NT B as shown in Exhibit 15, Alternative NT B Conceptual Site Plan, consists of a new single Terminal that contains all passenger and baggage processing in one CP with a dual level curb, two Y shaped concourses, new arrival and departure roadways, a new large public parking garage and new aircraft parking aprons. Terminal NT B consisting of a single CP with a set of two branching double-loaded concourses to accommodate the aircraft parking while minimizing passenger walking distances. Domestic and International passengers and bags are both processed within this single CP that expedites connections. Landside - A new dual level roadway for NT B would allow for the separation of Arrivals and Departures vehicle traffic with passenger and baggage checkin on the upper level and baggage claim on the lower level. The existing International Circle would serve as the primary entry/exit roadway to the terminal area and would have a new garage directly across from the newly constructed CP and curbs. Garage B will be reused for employee parking eliminating the need to bus employees from the remote employee lot. Airside The new apron for NT B allows for dual taxilane paths to and from each aircraft gate with only a few gates restricted by an adjacent gate when being pushed back by a tug for departure and has no pushbacks into active taxiways. NT A provides 35 aircraft gates to meet 2025/2030 demand and can be expanded off the southern Y concourse to meet the 42 gates for the beyond 2030 horizon but does not offer the ability to provide additional gate capacity beyond more than 42 gates. Cost includes new hydrant fueling and storm drainage. Cost - The estimated cost for NT-B, in 2015 dollars, is $972 million. Implementation Constructing NT-B on the currently vacant Terminal A site allows for minimum disruption to the existing on-going Terminals B and C vehicle and passenger operations. July 2017 Page 49 of 68

62 Exhibit 15: Alternative NT B Conceptual Site Plan Source:, PGAL, May 7, July 2017 Page 50 of 68

63 3.4.5 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF FINAL FOUR ALTERNATIVES After all previous evaluation processes and refinements to the alternatives were complete, the final four alternatives were evaluated against the Exhibit K Program Goals with added detail to the cost estimates and implementation phasing. The alternatives were grouped by MR and NT so the evaluation judged each group on an equal basis using the same criteria. Exhibit 16, Conceptual Cost Estimates by Major Facility Components, shows the final refined cost estimates rolled up into the major facility components for each alternative. These costs, along with the evaluations provided throughout the charrette process, were used to develop the evaluation matrix discussed in Section 3.4.6, MR versus NT Evaluation Matrix. Exhibit 16: Conceptual Cost Estimates by Major Facility Components Source: KCI Development Program Process Update, City Council Meeting, December 10, Leigh Fisher and. The initial preliminary cost estimates for the four alternatives were a concern for the Leadership Committee since each alternative was above the expected level of affordability for the project, with the MR alternatives having a higher cost than the NT alternatives. Similar ongoing projects were benchmarked with the unit costs of the alternatives cost estimates and were found to be within a similar unit cost range. These results were presented to the Leadership Committee. The Leadership Committee directed the Terminal Planning Team to reassess and refine the design and the cost estimates for all four alternatives will the intent to bring the capital costs into the affordability target range. July 2017 Page 51 of 68

64 To validate the Terminal Planning Team s cost estimates, the ATR requested an independent review by Faithful and Gould (F&G), a firm that was not part of the original Exhibit K team. F&G reviewed the cost estimates for all four alternatives that included the capital cost reduction effort of the Terminal Planning Team. Their evaluation included the structure of the estimate, the completeness of the estimate, and the appropriateness of the unit costs used to forecast the construction costs. This reconciliation exercise resulted in a revised lower project cost estimates. These results were presented to the AAAC during Charrette #4. Even after this effort to reduce the capital costs for all of the alternatives, the estimated construction costs for the MR alternatives were higher, in a range of $73 million to $227 million, than the costs for the NT alternatives. A financial model analysis of the four alternatives was also prepared. The analysis showed that the MR alternatives had a greater cost per enplanements (CPEs) than either NT alternative. The financial analysis did not take into account the higher life cycle costs of the MR alternatives associated with the reuse of the existing apron and reuse of the existing structures, which would have created an even larger CPE gap between the MR and NT alternatives. The results of the financial model indicated the MR alternatives were not only significantly more expensive from a capital cost perspective but also significantly higher on a rates and charges basis when compared to the NT alternatives EVALUATION MATRIX MR APPROACH VERSUS NT APPROACH The differences in project strategies for meeting the Exhibit K Program Goals with the MR approach or the NT approach were evaluated for customer service, affordability, constructability, technology right-sized, flexibility, and efficiency. Using theses seven goals, an evaluation matrix was created to compare the MR and NT alternatives. This matrix is shown in Exhibit 17, Evaluation Matrix MR Approach versus NT Approach. Four of the seven the project goals were served, in part, with the MR approach. Three project goals were not met affordability, right-sized, and efficiency. The MR operating and capital costs were higher than with the NT approach. The MR approach brought challenges in constructability with both phasing and maintaining operations with minimal disruption. The geometry of the existing Terminals inhibited the large-scale reuse of the existing buildings and infrastructures. This resulted in the space being underutilized, functional areas not right-sized and/or not located to maximize adjacencies and efficiencies for customer service and convenience. These challenges led to a less efficient design when compared to the NT clean slate approach. The objective of Exhibit K was to assist the City in identifying a mutually agreed upon Terminal Development Program (TDP) as part of the airlines Use and Lease negotiations with the City. The Exhibit K process, through its iterative development, refinement, and evaluation of MR and NT alternatives was to achieve a consensus on two MR alternatives and two NT alternatives. Then to conduct further analysis and evaluation to select a recommended terminal alternative. Through this process, the July 2017 Page 52 of 68

65 evaluation matrix of the MR approach versus NT approach, the cost estimates, and the financial models called into question the value of further using time and resources to refine a set of alternative designs that did not fully meet the requirements of the Exhibit K Program Goals. With this information, it was the consensus and vote of the Leadership Committee to withhold further analysis and investment in the two MR alternatives and to focus on refining the two NT alternatives. Exhibit 17: Evaluation Matrix MR Approach versus NT Approach Source: KCI Development Program Process Update, City Council Meeting, December 10, Leigh Fisher and. 3.5 TWO SELECTED ALTERNATIVES The evaluation of Alternative NT A and Alternative NT B determined that these two alternatives best met the Exhibit K Program Goals of customer convenience, affordability, constructability, technology, efficiency, right-sized, flexibility and efficiency. The Terminal Planning Team was tasked to refine both NT alternatives to refine more thoroughly the landside, terminal, airside, and construction phasing elements that would be used to prepare more detailed cost estimates. In a parallel task, a more detailed evaluation was developed to provide a more nuanced appraisal of Alternative NT A and Alternative NT B. Similarities between the NT A and NT B alternatives include using the existing Terminal A site as the land envelope for development, utilizing a central processor with splits between the Arrival and Departure passenger flows, minimizing building size and walking distances with double-loaded concourses, and having similar roadway and garage designs for landside operations. The methodology used to July 2017 Page 53 of 68

66 conceptually design Alternative NT A and Alternative NT B is different for post security passenger flows, aircraft gating, and baggage handling. Each supports a different process to meet different goals. Alternative NT A focuses on the flexibility and cost effectiveness of the H terminal design with a rectilinear concourse layout, double-loaded aircraft parking with dual taxilane aircraft flows, consolidated baggage makeup and screening areas. Alternative NT B attempts to maximize the terminal efficiency through a branched concourse layout that splits double-loaded concourses with concession nodes at each fork ALTERNATIVE NT A The further refinement of Alternative NT A addressed cost and connectivity issues identified in the earlier evaluations processes. These refinements modified airside, terminal, and landside elements to utilize more of the existing infrastructure, to right - size the facilities, and to minimize operational disruptions during construction. The refined site plan for Alternative NT A is depicted in Exhibit 18, Alternative NT A Site Plan. Exhibit 18: Alternative NT A Site Plan Source:, PGAL. July 2017 Page 54 of 68

67 The amount of new apron and apron replacement areas were reduced. The RON positions and centralized deicing facilities were consolidated where possible. Some RON positions were relocated to existing Terminal B parking positions to make use of existing pavement. Taxilanes deemed not operationally effective were removed. The size of cul-de-sac taxilanes were modified from dual ADG III capable to a combination of a single ADG III plus a single B757 with winglets aircraft taxilane configuration. This airline requested change made more operational space available to the predominant gauges of aircraft types anticipated to use the terminal. Terminal improvements included reducing the overall building square footage while reallocating space for future check-in, security screening, concession, and holdroom needs. The ends of the concourses were enlarged to provide larger contiguous holdroom space using new passenger queuing facilities. Concessions were consolidated into two large nodes; the first located directly west of security screening, and the second at the terminus of the passenger corridor to the airside concourse. Some of the area identified for post security circulation adjacent to the security screening space was reallocated to allow for the future extension of the security screening process and provide free flow passenger circulation. Baggage systems were reevaluated for redundancy, system length, and complexity. Systems with similar functions were shifted to more contiguous spaces for consolidation. The placement of the terminal in Alternative NT A was shifted northward to improve construction staging processes within the landside ramp configuration, to smooth the curvature of road paths, and to ease the upper level road ramp slopes. This shift allowed for greater use of Circle Drive as the primary inbound/outbound road for passenger and commercial traffic and minimized the amount of demolition necessary to the Terminal A and Terminal B sites. Connectivity between the Terminal and Garage were redesigned for underground and road level pedestrian passage ALTERNATIVE NT B The further refinement of Alternative NT B also addressed cost and connectivity issues identified in the earlier evaluations processes. Changes to the alternative included the modification of airside, terminal, and landside elements to utilize more of the existing infrastructure, right-size the facilities, and minimize operational disruption during construction. The refined site plan for Alternative NT B is depicted in Exhibit 19, Alternative NT B Site Plan. The amount of airside pavement was reduced by modifying the dedicated RON positions on the north end of the airfield. These were either consolidated with centralized deicing pads or limited use taxilanes. Some of the RON positions were transferred to existing pavement located south of existing Terminal B. The removal of a dual taxilane on the southern end of the apron adjacent to the terminal resulted in lower demolition impact towards the south airfield. Taxilanes encompassing the perimeter of the terminal complex were modified from dual ADG III capable to a combination of a single ADG III plus a single B757 with winglets aircraft taxilane configuration. This airline requested modification provided more operational space for use by the gauges of aircraft forecasted to most likely use the terminal. July 2017 Page 55 of 68

68 The terminal layout was readjusted to improve passenger flow and consolidate space. The FIS facilities were moved from the Mezzanine Level to the Departures Level. This made way for the Mezzanine Level to be eliminated in its entirety, simplifying the overall terminal plan. The security screening area was lengthened into post security passenger circulation to allocate space for future improvements in the security checkpoint layout. The dual baggage systems were reevaluated for redundancy, system length, and complexity. The baggage screening areas were consolidated into one centralized baggage inspection system (CBIS). Systems with similar functions were shifted to more contiguous spaces for consolidation. Exhibit 19: Alternative NT B Site Plan Source:, PGAL. With the similarity in terminal site layout, many of the Alternative NT B landside refinements are similar to the Alternative NT A refinements. Consistent with Alternative NT A, terminal placement for Alternative NT B was shifted northward to improve construction staging processes within the landside ramp configuration, to smooth curvature of road paths, and to ease the upper level road ramp slopes. The shift permitted the existing Terminal B to remain, saving it for future use. Connectivity between the Terminal and Garage were redesigned for underground and road level pedestrian connectivity. July 2017 Page 56 of 68

69 3.6 SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE The evaluation of Alternative NT A and Alternative NT B determined that these two alternatives best met the Exhibit K Program Goals. To select the Recommended Alternative, a more comprehensive and thorough evaluation was conducted focusing on the functional properties of the design. The evaluation criteria used for the previous evaluations were further segmented to better define each functional need that defines a successful terminal. These included: 1. Customer Convenience a. Walking distances b. Ease of passenger flow c. Efficient passenger processing areas d. Airport operational efficiency 2. Program Costs a. Initial build costs b. Operational costs 3. Safety & Security a. Terminal access control b. Security process efficiency: passenger, employee, and concessions 4. Sustainability Environmental a. Siting principles for wind and sun b. Meets the City s sustainability goals c. Sub-surface remediation d. Airfield drainage and water quality 5. Airside Functionality a. Aircraft gate parking operational efficiencies b. Aircraft RON/hardstands parking operational efficiencies c. Aircraft gate use flexibility d. Apron/taxilane efficiency e. Taxi distance and other key operational facilities f. Aircraft deicing operational efficiency g. Provides efficient airside snow removal 6. Landside Functionality a. Terminal roadway operations b. Vehicle parking capacity and operations c. Use of existing parking facilities July 2017 Page 57 of 68

70 7. Terminal Functionality a. Flexibility for potential airport operational changes b. Flexibility to meet dynamic airline operational requirements c. International passenger processing d. Non-airline revenue opportunities 8. Baggage Handling Systems a. TSA Checked Baggage Inspection System (CBIS) efficiencies b. Inbound/outbound baggage operational efficiencies c. Tug maneuvering/circulation to gates 9. Construction Logistics & Phasing a. Logistics of construction b. Impact to customer service c. Impact to airline operations d. Impact to infrastructure & utilities e. Enabling work required f. Impact to schedule based on phasing 10. Future Expansion a. Airside incremental expansion (gates) b. Terminal incremental expansion c. Baggage system incremental expansion d. Roadway and parking incremental expansion To methodically examine and compare these alternatives, the Leadership Committee requested the Terminal Planning Team to further refine both NT alternatives to better reflect the refined criteria. Additional design and operational functions were added to the airside, terminal, and landside facilities of both Alternative NT A and Alternative NT B to corroborate with the expanded evaluation criteria. Construction phasing was included to define the capability of constructing the alternatives within the current terminal complex operations. Several changes were highlighted for Alternative NT A and Alternative NT B to lower the costs and minimize disruption to existing operations. Additional adjustments to siting the terminals northward supported shortening the landside roadway entrances while moving the construction envelope further to the north and away from the existing landside and airside operations in Terminal B. Most importantly, this northward shift of the new Terminal site for both Alternative NT A and Alternative NT B, allowed the hard angled curvature of the roadways to be softened to a larger radius curve upon exiting the upper and lower terminal curbfronts. July 2017 Page 58 of 68

71 Landside functions were reevaluated to make better use of the existing infrastructure, including surface and garage parking, International Road and Circle Road, and water retention basins. Airside apron configurations were consolidated to make better use of the apron, including dual use RON/deicing positons, RON placement in existing pavement, and reducing the amount of dual taxilane pavement in less trafficked areas. Terminal envelopes were streamlined where possible to remove any excess space. Similar functions were consolidated where possible. The size of public circulation space and holdrooms were reduced where contiguous usage allowed for refinement while keeping the integrity of the design. Redundancy of similar functions and circulation paths were also refined or removed. The refined versions of Alternative NT A and Alternative NT B were then scored by the KCAD, ATR, and the Leadership Committee using the updated evaluation matrix. The result of this evaluation determined that Alternative NT A best fit the goals of the Exhibit K process and was selected as the Recommended Alternative SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE NT A Alternative NT A was selected as the Recommended Alternative due to its design, achieving the highest score during the more detailed evaluation in nearly all of the major assessment categories. The scores for Customer Convenience were nearly identical for Alternative NT A and Alternative NT B, with Alternative NT B scoring slightly better for walking distances and Alternative NT A slightly better for wayfinding. Alternative NT A was the less costly of the two alternatives, both for capital costs and operational costs. The higher complexity of the split operation with Alternative NT B was inherently less efficient and costlier to build. Both alternatives were given high marks on safety and security, given their forward focus on accommodating future security technologies into the design. Both alternatives met the sustainability goals of the Exhibit K process; each minimized the amount of ground that would be disturbed, minimized the use of greenfield areas, and maximized the adaptive reuse of existing facilities within the terminal complex. The rectilinear design of Alternative NT A was more conducive for apron operations, given that most areas of possible aircraft maneuvering conflicts have clear lines of sight with few visual obstructions. Throughout the process of refining Alternative NT A and Alternative NT B, the landside layouts became strikingly similar. Both scored high on level of functionality. The rectilinear design also aided in the functionality of the terminal design. Several terminal functions, including baggage, concessions, and contiguous holdroom space were split or distributed along the three nodes of Alternative NT B. The design of Alternative NT A allowed for the consolidation of these functions into more centralized groupings and cross utilization of space. The Alternative NT A baggage systems allowed for a simple single path through CBIS/CBRA (Checked Baggage Resolution Area) to the single grouping of outbound makeup devices. The design of Alternative NT B required two paths to the outbound makeup devices, increasing complexity and lowering redundancy. July 2017 Page 59 of 68

72 The construction and phasing of the Alternative NT A design was found to be more straightforward than the Alternative NT B design. The definition of the phasing and transition of operations from existing facilities to the new facility was less complex and more structured with Alternative NT A. The capability of Alternative NT B to expand beyond the forecast required several extra construction phasing steps to gain full functionality without disrupting airport operations, while Alternative NT A allows for expansion with minimal disruption to the operational envelope on the ends of the concourse. Based on this more detail assessment, the Airlines and KCAD selected Alternative NT A as the preferred terminal development alternative to recommend to City Council. During the Airlines April 26, 2016 presentation to City Council, the Airlines agreed to the Exhibit K recommendation of designing and building a new single, consolidated terminal complex based on the NT A Alternatives. The Airport and the Airlines serving Kansas City have also reached agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit L) which provides the framework for a new long-term Use and Lease Agreement to support the new single, consolidated terminal complex. The Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit L) is included as an Appendix to this Exhibit K document. As a part of this agreement the Airlines will back the General Airport Revenue Bonds for the new terminal program and as a result no City tax revenues will be used or be at risk. The Airlines do not support any other terminal alternative and had requested an August 2016 referendum ALTERNATIVE NT A The final design of Alternative NT A is a 35-narrowbody-gate Terminal with the capability to expand to 42 gates in the future. Four international capable gates are configured to allow for two (2) widebody aircraft to park, if necessary. The layout of the Terminal is in an I formation, with 12 gates on the landside Terminal base connected to 23 dual loaded gates on the airside concourse via a pedestrian connector with moving walkways to assist both arriving and departing passengers. The gates within the two cul-de-sacs are adjacent to two taxilanes, one ADG III-capable and one B757-capable. While other gates have a mix of single and dual taxilanes. The apron connects to the taxiway system through three airside entrance points onto the north/south-oriented Taxiway B and two southern points onto the east/west-oriented Taxiway D. A set of two centralized deicing facilities were included; one located on the North apron and one on the South apron. These aprons double as RON positions when the deicing facilities are not in operation. The final site plan for Alternative NT A is depicted in Exhibit 20, Alternative NT A. July 2017 Page 60 of 68

73 Exhibit 20: Alternative NT A Site Plan Source:, July 2017 Page 61 of 68

74 Arrival and Departure operations are split between two levels of the Terminal. The first level is the Arrivals level, consisting of a baggage claim area with six (6) bag claim units and a meeter/greeter area in the center. Processing of International passengers occurs in the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) area on the Arrivals level. This CBP area is a standalone space with its own bag input device, bag claim area, and sterile passenger circulation. Passengers exit the CBP on the first level into the bag claim and meeter/greeter area. Other facilities on this level include the non-public areas of CBIS/CBRA, inbound/outbound bag makeup, airline support space, concessions support, and mechanical functions supporting the Terminal. The layout for the first level is depicted in Exhibit 21, Alternative NT A Floor Plan, Level 1 ARRIVALS. Exhibit 21: Alternative NT A Floor Plan, Level 1 - ARRIVALS Source: PGAL, Wellner Architects, July 2017 Page 62 of 68

75 The second level of the Terminal contains the Departures functions as well as circulation to and from gates. The second level includes all ticketing, bag drop functions, and circulation along the frontage interface of the Terminal. This non-secure area is connected by a 12-lane security checkpoint and secure corridor to the secure side of the Terminal. The secure airside of the Terminal includes passenger circulation and Departure lounges. Two large concession nodes are located on the secure side, one for each concourse, and a business club area located at the end of the pedestrian bridge in the airside concourse. The four International-capable gates are located on the southeast side of the Terminal. The plan for the second level is depicted in Exhibit 22, Alternative NT A Floor Plan, Level 2 - DEPARTURES. Exhibit 22: Alternative NT A Floor Plan, Level 2 - DEPARTURES Source: PGAL, Wellner Architects, July 2017 Page 63 of 68

76 A section of the Terminal, Garage, and connectors is depicted in Exhibit 23, Alternative NT A East/West Section. This section shows the 6,500-space six-level garage with covered commercial curb connected to the two-level Terminal via roadway crosswalks on each level and an underground tunnel. The basement level has parking and a single pedestrian tunnel connecting the Garage to the Arrivals level of the Terminal. As shown in Exhibit 23 the ground level consists of parking and a covered commercial curb inside the Garage, the arrivals roadway, and Terminal passenger curb between the Garage and Terminal. The Arrivals level of the Terminal includes the meeter/greeter area for both international and domestic passengers and baggage claim devices. The Departures level is the next level above the Arrivals. It is comprised of parking in the Garage, the departures roadway, located directly above the arrivals roadway, with the curb and Garage connected by pedestrian crosswalks for passengers. The curb is directly adjacent to the Departures level face of the Terminal containing check-in and bag drop, a security checkpoint, retail, holdrooms, and connections to the gates. Three (3) more floors of parking in the Garage are located above the Departures level. Exhibit 23: Alternative NT A East/West Section Source: PGAL, Wellner Architects, July 2017 Page 64 of 68

77 Exhibit 24, Alternative NT A Perspective, Check-in Lobby, depicts the initial view of a departing passenger as they enter into the terminal. The lobby includes ample space for check-in procedures including ticketing, check-in at both traditional counters and free-standing kiosks, as well as, baggage drop facilities. The passenger flow from check-in to security is an easy transition with minimal visual or physical obstructions. Exhibit 24: Alternative NT A Perspective, Check-in Lobby Source: PGAL, Wellner Architects, July 2017 Page 65 of 68

78 After passing through the security checkpoint, passengers would continue on to the post-security reconciliation area with ample room to recollect articles from the security process and transition easily to the circulation area to their gates. Passengers will be able to see aircraft parked on the landside concourse as a landmark for the path to their departing gates. A perspective depicting a representation of this area is shown in Exhibit 25, Alternative NT A Perspective, Post Security Reconciliation. Exhibit 25: Alternative NT A Perspective, Post Security Reconciliation Source: PGAL, Wellner Architects, July 2017 Page 66 of 68

79 Exhibit 26, Alternative NT A Perspective, Midfield Concourse, illustrates a concept for the holdrooms and retail area on the airside concourse. Open circulation paths with wide vistas allow passengers to visually view and connect with the area that aids in their wayfinding within the concourse. The linear shape of the concourse provides passengers with an unobstructed view of the pathways, holdrooms, and retail areas. Exhibit 26: Alternative NT A Perspective, Midfield Concourse Source: PGAL, Wellner Architects, July 2017 Page 67 of 68

80 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK July 2017 Page 68 of 68

81 APPENDIX EXHIBIT L MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TERMINAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 1. Purpose and Predicated Conditions to Fulfill MOU A. This Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) describes certain business terms and conditions as a framework for the preparation of a definitive agreement between the City of Kansas City, Missouri ( City ) and airlines signatory to the existing Use and Lease Agreement ( Airlines ) covering the design, financing, construction, and operation of the Terminal Modernization Program (TMP ) at the Kansas City International Airport ( Airport ) as further defined below. B. It is the intention of the parties to this MOU to engage in good faith negotiations leading to execution of such definitive agreement ( Final Agreement ) between City and Airlines consistent with this MOU. C. This Final Agreement will be predicated upon the approval of: 1. City of Kansas City, Missouri City Council ( Council ), and; 2. Voter referendum for the sale of Airport Revenue Bonds by the citizens of Kansas City, Missouri. D. It is the collective recommendation of the Airlines that a new single terminal, and associated improvements, be constructed in substantial form and function as depicted by New Terminal-A concept ( NT-A ), as further described below. The Airlines, along with the Airport, have to date, invested considerable time, effort and money in evaluating and recommending the most cost-efficient, customer friendly, future oriented Airport concept feasible for the passengers and Airlines of Kansas City. It is with this industry expertise that the NT-A concept has been arrived at without disagreement among the Airlines and Leadership Committee as specified in Exhibit K under the 2014 Master Amendment to the Use and Lease Agreement. The Airlines are willing to invest in this concept and do not support other alternatives that are not substantially similar to NT-A. Therefore, in the event that Council and/or voter referendum does not agree to the new single terminal concept, as recommended by the Airlines, then this MOU shall cease and be null and void of any implementation. 2. Exhibit K Process Results The planning results of Exhibit K to the Use and Lease Agreement require the Aviation Department and the Airlines to make two recommendations to the Mayor and City Council: (1) a recommended terminal modernization concept, and (2) a proposed implementation plan, defined scope, schedule, budget, and financial plan, including a Target Total Annual Airline Requirement projected over the first 5 (five) years after the date of beneficial occupancy ( DBO ) of the improved terminal facilities and Maximum Program Construction Cost. The results of this process are described in Sections A. and B. below. Appendix July 2017 Page 1

82 A. General Description of TMP The TMP shall be substantially in concept and configuration as depicted in NT-A (see Attachment A, NT-A Concept) and meet the facility requirements as established through the Use and Lease Agreement, Exhibit K process. The TMP shall substantially consist of the following project elements: A. Terminal access will be provided from the existing airport roadway system. B. A two-level terminal roadway serving arriving and departing passengers achieving required curb length. Separate commercial curbs will be provided to serve courtesy shuttle services, rental car buses, public buses and other commercial ground transportation requirements. C. Approximate 750,000 square foot terminal facility, including curbside, ticketing lobby, TSA compliant security screening checkpoint, TSA compliant in-line Checked Baggage Inspection System and associated support areas, baggage claim areas, and associated support functions. Facility to include secure concourses providing concessions and customer amenities, capable of providing 35 ADG III aircraft (including 4 City-controlled, internationally capable gates and associated Federal Inspection Services ( FIS )) with expansion option to 42 gates and Airline operational support facilities incorporated to successfully operate and maintain terminal-related functions. D. Airline equipment to address air carrier operations in the terminal, including passenger boarding bridges, aircraft support systems (e.g., pre-conditioned air, ground power, potable water, etc.), communications infrastructure, common use communications system for City-controlled gates, information display systems (e.g., flight information display systems, baggage information display systems, etc.), inbound and outbound baggage handling systems, and applicable tenant finishes. E. Terminal aircraft apron and non-movement areas sized to accommodate aircraft fleet, dual taxilanes as appropriate, to accommodate B757 aircraft, connections to taxiways, adequate remaining overnight ( RON ) aircraft parking positions, and approximately eight (8) common use deicing pads and associated collection system. F. Aircraft in-ground hydrant fueling system to service the 35 gates with a connection to the existing aviation fuel farm system. New system will include piping, isolation valves, fuel pits, emergency shut-offs and meet current environmental requirements. G. Multi-level public parking structure with approximately 6,500 parking spaces adjacent to the terminal, and connected to the landside terminal via pedestrian walkways and a pedestrian tunnel. Covered pedestrian walkway from Terminal B garage to terminal. H. Close-in public surface parking with approximately 2,000 parking spaces within walking distance of the terminal. I. Associated site development, including relocation of pipelines, natural gas lines, communications facilities, and electronic transmission lines; demolition of Terminal A; environmental mitigation (if any); site grading and drainage; fencing; construction access roads and staging areas, among other things. J. Plan will incorporate maintenance of operations and phasing plan to ensure operations in Terminals B & C are maintained during construction. Appendix July 2017 Page 2

83 B. Exhibit K Financial Feasibility Target Total Annual Airline Requirement The Target Total Annual Airline Requirement required by Exhibit K to be jointly agreed upon by the City and the Airlines is estimated to be approximately $69.33 million (in 2022 dollars) excluding amounts related to providing a rolling coverage account. This target shall be revised and finalized jointly by the City and the Airlines as part of the Final Agreement, including a mechanism to adjust such amount based on agreed-upon scope and budget changes. 3. Final Agreement The parties commit to completing negotiations of a Final Agreement no later than April 30, For an agreement to be presented to Council authorizing the Director of Aviation to execute the Final Agreement, a Majority in Interest of Airlines ( Final Agreement MII ) must agree to execute the Final Agreement. Such Final Agreement MII shall consist of at least 50% of the Airlines (in number) that collectively account for at least 50% of rates, fees and charges paid by Airlines during the previous twelve (12) months ending December 31, The Final Agreement shall consist of the following elements, which are outlined below and more fully described in the following sections: A. A residual rate-making methodology. B. Airline approval rights over additional capital expenditures not included as part of the TMP. C. A jointly agreed upon scope, schedule and budget for the TMP. D. A jointly agreed upon financing plan to support implementation of the TMP. E. TMP implementation cost controls and oversight. F. A consolidated airline tenant improvement program to be managed and implemented by the Airlines. G. An Annual Renewal and Replacement Fund to insure airport facilities remain in operation during the term of revenue bonds issued to finance the Airport. 4. Term of Final Agreement The term ("Term ) of the Final Agreement is anticipated to begin on or about May 1, 2017 and extend through the first four (4) full Fiscal Years beyond the first full Fiscal Year after the DBO of the TMP. There shall be an option to extend the Term of the Final Agreement by two (2), two (2) Fiscal Year periods with mutual consent of City and Airlines. The Final Agreement will provide Airlines with the opportunity to adjust terminal leased premises after the 3 rd anniversary, at DBO, at the 8 th anniversary of the Term and upon execution of each exercised renewal period. Appendix July 2017 Page 3

84 5. Conditions of Final Agreement A. The Final Agreement s business arrangement shall provide for an Airport System residual-cost ratemaking methodology as part of a new long-term Use and Lease Agreement. The Airport System consists of the Airport and Kansas City Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport (identified as Exhibit H in the current Use and Lease Agreement). The City intends to cap the amount of net expenses attributed to the operation, maintenance, and development of Kansas City Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport as recovered from Airlines at the Airport, which amount shall be indexed for inflation. Under this residual-cost ratemaking approach, the Airlines collectively agree to assume significant financial risk. The Airlines shall keep the Airport System financially self-sustaining by making up any deficit, the residual cost, remaining after the costs identified for all airport users have been offset by nonairline sources of revenue, and to further insure that Airport System revenues are sufficient to be in compliance with the rate covenant of the General Airport System Revenue Bonds Master Bond Ordinance. B. Prior to DBO, Airlines, through their Airport rates and charges, may provide incremental funds totaling approximately $40 million that will be segregated by the City in the Extension and Bond Retirement Account ( Pre-DBO Funds ) and held for specific purposes as shall be determined by a majority in interest of Airlines, which may include, among other things, extinguish the General Airport Revenue Bond Series 2013A (Non- PFC Portion) subsequent to their call date of September 1, 2021, provide liquidity to potentially delay borrowing, provide contingency funding (if needed), reduce borrowing for the TMP, fund the Coverage Deposit Account, and/or fund the cost of tenant improvements. The rates and charges of any airline that commences service to the Airport after the collection of Pre-DBO Funds commences shall be subject to an annual surcharge on its post DBO rates equal to the amount of Pre-DBO Funds collected as of the point in time such airline commences service amortized over a five (5) year period. C. The City will include $5.9 million in funding for an Airline consolidated tenant improvement ( CTI ) program so the costs of finishing Airline spaces, exclusive, preferential and common, will be included in the cost of the TMP and recovered from each Airline based on a measure of each individual Airline s use of CTI program funding. D. The Revenue Bonds shall not be or constitute a general indebtedness of the City. Neither the general faith nor taxing power (including ad valorem taxes) are pledged to the payment of the Revenue Bonds and the City shall not be under any obligation to pay the principal or interest except from revenues of the Airport System as pledged to the payment of the bonds. 6. Cost of the TMP The total cost to construct NT-A is estimated to be approximately $950M in 2015 dollars ( Base TMP Cost ). Attachment B, TMP Cost Estimate details the NT-A cost estimate. The parties agree to authorize an amount not to exceed $975M in 2015 dollars ( NTE TMP Cost ). In order to exceed the Base TMP Cost, certain project controls and oversight must be accomplished and maintained. TMP controls and oversight is further described below. In order to surpass the NTE TMP Cost, a majority in interest of Airlines must be obtained. The Base TMP Cost and NTE TMP Cost shall be calculated from time-to-time over the course of the design and construction period on the basis of the then-current cost estimate and an index to reset such cost to 2015 dollars. In the event that a TMP majority in interest of Airlines agrees to scope changes that increase or decrease project costs, the Base TMP and NTE TMP Cost shall be adjusted upward or downward accordingly. Appendix July 2017 Page 4

85 7. Financing of the TMP A. The TMP may be financed with a combination of Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) Airport Improvement Program ( AIP ) grants-in-aid, Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) grants, Passenger Facility Charge ( PFC ) pay-as-you-go revenues, Revenue Bonds (including those backed by PFCs), and if applicable pay-asyou-go advance funding by the Airlines. B. The City shall seek authorization to apply for PFC funding at the highest PFC level generally allowable (i.e., excluding pilot programs) during the financing of the TMP. The City agrees to optimize PFC pay-as-you-go and leveraging for the TMP to achieve the most advantageous utcome and to use reasonable efforts in its debt financing to achieve level overall debt service both during and beyond the term of the Final Agreement. C. Airlines agree to support the City s efforts to pursue an AIP Letter of Intent ( LOI ) and TSA grant funding for the TMP, if such option is available. 8. TMP Cost Controls and Oversight A. The parties agree to review and thoroughly analyze the suitable project delivery method(s) for each specific TMP project element (Terminal, Parking, Airside Civil, Landside Civil, Aircraft Hydrant Fueling, Environmental De-Icing requirement, Airline Equipment (passenger loading bridges, baggage systems, common use kiosks on City gates and ticket counters), Airline consolidated tenant improvements, etc.) which are lawful and permitted within City ordinances and FAA rules and regulations, including the rules related to use of AIP grants and PFCs. Project delivery method(s) may include design-bid-build ( DBB ), design-build ( DB ), Construction Manager at Risk with a Guaranteed Maximum Price ( CMR/GMP ) or any other delivery method(s) that are deemed appropriate and provide the maximum economic benefit to the TMP. B. City, working through its Aviation Department, shall hire a Program Manager ( PM ) that reports directly to the Deputy Director of Aviation Planning & Engineering who is responsible for assisting the Aviation Department in managing design and construction contracts, preparing cost estimates, budgeting and monitoring, construction phasing, preparing quarterly reports to monitor the status of design and construction contracts and associated cost estimates, among other things, to provide for a complete facility (to meet all essential Airline, other tenant(s) and airport operational requirements upon occupancy), and other activities as are deemed necessary to maintain TMP schedule and budget. C. Airline shall procure an Airline Technical Representative ( ATR ) to be integrated as part of the overall TMP team and serve as the single point of reference to coordinate with the Airlines and collectively represent the Airlines during the TMP. The ATR may potentially manage TMP project elements as mutually agreed upon by the Aviation Department and Airlines. The ATR will serve in this role until the earlier of (1) the time at which a simple majority of Airlines agree to replace the ATR; (2) the time at which a simple majority of Airlines agree these services are no longer needed; or (3) the TMP is complete. Appendix July 2017 Page 5

86 D. There shall be two (2) organized committees; (1) Steering Committee ( SC ), and; (2) Program Management Committee ( PMC ). The SC will be an extension of the current Leadership Committee consisting of four Airline representatives (the AAAC Chair and three additional Airline representatives), Deputy Director of Aviation Finance, Deputy Director of Aviation Properties & Commercial Development, and Deputy Director of Aviation Planning & Engineering. The Airline representatives of the SC may be rotated as the AAAC Chair and other Airlines deem appropriate. For all SC issues requiring a decision, the Airlines will have one vote (based on a simple majority of the four Airline representatives) and the City will have one vote (based on a simple majority of the three City representatives), however any decision arriving out of the SC must be unanimous. E. The SC will (1) provide general oversight to the PMC; (2) meet on a regular basis not less than monthly to review the progress of the TMP with respect to scope, schedule, budget and financial plan; (3) review a monthly schedule and cost report prepared by the PMC; (4) vote on TMP change orders that increase the TMP by some mutually agreeable threshold or result in a change in scope that has a material impact to airline operations; (5) review and work to resolve issues to assure the schedule for the TMP is maintained. F. The PMC consists of the Deputy Director of Aviation - Planning & Engineering, PM, and the ATR who will meet at least weekly to coordinate its efforts and to provide the SC with its requested information necessary to make educated decisions during the TMP. The PMC shall have the approval capacities, within agreed to time limitations, to approve individual change orders or scope alterations up to an agreed to dollar amount. Those items and/or scope changes that exceed the agreed to threshold of the PMC shall be referred to the SC. G. There shall also be formalized policies and procedures documents to be followed in implementing the TMP, including but not limited to: 1. Organizational structure and key personnel 2. Roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the SC 3. Roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the PMC 4. Project budget procedures and reporting system 5. Project scheduling procedures and reporting system 6. Design coordination and control procedures 7. Program documentation and filing procedures 8. Tenant coordination procedures 9. Permitting procedures/construction site access 10. Procurement procedures and status reporting system 11. Accident reporting procedures 12. Field inspection and quality control procedures 13. Progress payments procedures 14. Change Order procedures 15. Other procedures as deemed necessary Appendix July 2017 Page 6

87 9. Capital Improvement Program Not Including TMP As part of the Final Agreement there shall be an approved Capital Improvement Program ( CIP ) for other relevant and necessary capital projects that do not involve the TMP. As projects are completed, needs change and additional projects are warranted, City shall present a Revised CIP at least annually. In the event that the Airlines do not agree with the City requested revisions, City may request a majority in interest be obtained from the Airlines in order for the Revised CIP be approved and authorized. Certain capital expenditures shall be permitted to be undertaken by City at any time and shall not be subject to consideration or disapproval by Airlines as is customary for such, including but not limited to, projects that have been pre-approved in the Final Agreement, that are necessary or prudent to ensure compliance with a rule, regulation, or order of any federal, state, or other governmental agency and projects that would not impact the calculation of airline rates and charges. 10. Annual Renewal and Replacement Fund As part of the Final Agreement there shall be an established Annual Renewal and Replacement Fund ( R&R Fund ) which shall be used to pay for (1) renewals, reconstruction and replacement of any facilities and other reasonable expenses (engineering) incurred in connection therewith, (2) acquiring and installing or replacing equipment, (3) unusual or extraordinary maintenance or repairs, (4) and premiums on insurance carried under the provisions of the Final Agreement. 11. Consensus in Principle The above terms and conditions are provided to document consensus in principle reached in the course of verbal negotiation and represent only the parties intent as to these business terms for purposes of initiating a process to negotiate in good faith the specific terms and conditions of the Final Agreement. The provisions of this MOU are not legally enforceable until such time as they are incorporated into a duly approved and executed Final Agreement making this MOU a non-binding agreement between the City and the Airlines. Appendix July 2017 Page 7

88 ATTACHMENT A NT-A CONCEPT Appendix July 2017 Page 8

89 Appendix July 2017 Page 9