KCRag Forum

Exciting ...collison has the story today too

https://twitter.com/kckansascity/status ... 08160?s=19

$7 million(ish) in subsidies over 25 years for the parking structure?

$250k city contribution to the garage each year increasing 5% a year for 25 years to provide FREE evening and weekend parking? Have you absorbed none of the lessons KCMO?

*hits golf ball down the middle of Grand Boulevard*

kcjak wrote:$7 million(ish) in subsidies over 25 years for the parking structure?

smh wrote:$250k city contribution to the garage each year increasing 5% a year for 25 years to provide FREE evening and weekend parking? Have you absorbed none of the lessons KCMO?

If this math is correct, it's absolutely not $7 million.

5% annual increases over 25 years each year is a total of
$11,931,774.70

It was just a rudimentary calculation whith no time to sit and do all of the math. No need to be a dick about it but thanks for figuring it out to the last 70 cents.

kcjak wrote:It was just a rudimentary calculation whith no time to sit and do all of the math. No need to be a dick about it but thanks for figuring it out to the last 70 cents.

Should never have to sit down and figure numbers when there's free spreadsheet software available to do it for you.

Enter $250k in A1, enter =A1*1.05 in A2 and fill down to row 25. Then use sum in A26 to get the total.
Takes 20 seconds.

i think you forgot to adjust for future inflation to express in today-equivalent dollars though. everyone's wrong!!

this is bad message boarding

KCPowercat wrote:this is bad message boarding

Not by my calculations

kboish wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:this is bad message boarding

Not by my calculations

flyingember wrote:

kcjak wrote:It was just a rudimentary calculation whith no time to sit and do all of the math. No need to be a dick about it but thanks for figuring it out to the last 70 cents.

Should never have to sit down and figure numbers when there's free spreadsheet software available to do it for you.

Enter $250k in A1, enter =A1*1.05 in A2 and fill down to row 25. Then use sum in A26 to get the total.
Takes 20 seconds.

I don't comment on here a lot, and this shitty, condescending attitude is why. No wonder fewer and fewer people are joining or commenting.

kcjak wrote:

flyingember wrote:

kcjak wrote:It was just a rudimentary calculation whith no time to sit and do all of the math. No need to be a dick about it but thanks for figuring it out to the last 70 cents.

Should never have to sit down and figure numbers when there's free spreadsheet software available to do it for you.

Enter $250k in A1, enter =A1*1.05 in A2 and fill down to row 25. Then use sum in A26 to get the total.
Takes 20 seconds.

I don't comment on here a lot, and this shitty, condescending attitude is why. No wonder fewer and fewer people are joining or commenting.

You call me a dick after I give an accurate number to save everyone the time to figure it out and I have a bad attitude?

Yeah, that adds up...

Maybe don't assume everyone has a bad attitude and you'll have a better time. I don't assume everyone is a jerk or a troll and it works out better.

flyingember wrote:

kcjak wrote:

flyingember wrote: Should never have to sit down and figure numbers when there's free spreadsheet software available to do it for you.

Enter $250k in A1, enter =A1*1.05 in A2 and fill down to row 25. Then use sum in A26 to get the total.
Takes 20 seconds.

I don't comment on here a lot, and this shitty, condescending attitude is why. No wonder fewer and fewer people are joining or commenting.

You call me a dick after I give an accurate number to save everyone the time to figure it out and I have a bad attitude?

Yeah, that adds up...

Maybe don't assume everyone has a bad attitude and you'll have a better time. I don't assume everyone is a jerk or a troll and it works out better.

Save everyone the time? You only saved me twenty seconds.

I've asked the city manager (on Twitter, anyway) what the source of funds is. It seems odd to commit the city to this for 25 years with nary a word or action by the Council. I suspect it will come from "parking revenue" -- which is meter and ticket revenue. Irony noted!

It just doesn't make any sense.

It makes sense long-term if the City is considering rebuilding the Barney Allis Plaza parking garage, or losing some of that parking to the UMKC campus. They will need to provide alternative parking for the convention hotels that use the BAP garage while a new garage is built, or if spaces are lost to the UMKC project.

FangKC wrote:It makes sense long-term if the City is considering rebuilding the Barney Allis Plaza parking garage, or losing some of that parking to the UMKC campus. They will need to provide alternative parking for the convention hotels that use the BAP garage while a new garage is built, or if spaces are lost to the UMKC project.

...but the city charges for Barney Allis Plaza parking.

Couldn't they make the money by charging for parking? Or at least a reasonable amount? Like, why free?

exactly

WoodDraw wrote:Couldn't they make the money by charging for parking? Or at least a reasonable amount? Like, why free?

Garages aren't profitable because of the initial cost + operating overhead. That's why they're often incentivized, municipally owned/managed, or dedicated to one user who can cover the losses.

Here's the city manager's response to how it would be paid for (sort of a non-answer): https://twitter.com/KCMOManager/status/ ... 2156352513