Generic ongoing KCATA thread

[SilentSpades24]

How much does the 1/2 cent sales tax generate annually?

According to KCUR, KCATA gets $30 million, which is 2/3 of it, so I'd assume around $45 million yearly.

[shinatoo]

KCATA funding is on the council agenda today.

[SilentSpades24]

KCATA funding is on the council agenda today.

Which committee?

[bspecht]

I'd assume in Finance (happening now) as an amendment to the Budget.

[shinatoo]

I'd assume in Finance (happening now) as an amendment to the Budget.

Thats what I inferred from Q's X post.

[SilentSpades24]

So, from the proposed budget amendments.

$2 million from LED street lights to KCATA from the Public Mass Transit Tax.
$4.8 million in additional funds from that same tax.
$500k from PD spending to KCATA.

$7.3 million roughly found for KCATA service.

The big takeaway is KCMO is unhappy with the lack of transparency and communication from KCATA and plans to require them to meet certain "performance benchmarks" as part of the new contract. Seems that some, if not all, funding may be contigent on meeting said benchmarks.

[KCPowercat]

KCMO should have legit complaints.

[SilentSpades24]

KCMO should have legit complaints.

I mean if what Q said is true, in the fact that KCATA has not given them a number on what their shortfall truly is, nor told them what routes were under consideration prior to last week, then I don't blame them one bit for being pissed and being highly skeptical of providing additional funding.

Despite KCMO's shenanigans with the Public Mass Transportation Tax, I can't blame them for the stance they have right now regarding KCATA and it's inner workings, nor can I really be upset at the position that they don't want to fund the whole system (even as short-sighted as that is).

[beautyfromashes]

It feels like KCMO is just picking up the bill for other entities bad financial decisions or just not wanting to pay. We have the bus system here and it feels like the city is going to have to do most of the heavy lifting for the stadium, if that happens. Same for administration and management of the school district with an additional tax. Why are we letting the bus administration and county off the hook for their responsibilities? And how will these extra expenditures and taxes affect urban core growth?

[SilentSpades24]

It feels like KCMO is just picking up the bill for other entities bad financial decisions or just not wanting to pay. We have the bus system here and it feels like the city is going to have to do most of the heavy lifting for the stadium, if that happens. Same for administration and management of the school district with an additional tax. Why are we letting the bus administration and county off the hook for their responsibilities? And how will these extra expenditures and taxes affect urban core growth?

Considering most of the system and cuts would be occuring on routes that travel exclusively or almost exclusively through KCMO, yes, they should be picking up that tab for those services.

We've already seen them drop the tab for routes in Raytown, Gladstone, Grandview, and those cities ended those services. That's where the county should be stepping up and funding those routes/services. Same in Independence where the city also completely ended their services. KCK is the only partner left sharing service with KCMO and even they will be taking 2 routes in house without help from KCMO / KCATA.

My point with that is, yes, this is on KCMO to pick up the tab for. . That, however, doesn't excuse the foolishness at KCATA nor does it excuse Jackson County (Platte and Clay too) for not stepping up.

[beautyfromashes]

My point with that is, yes, this is on KCMO to pick up the tab for. . That, however, doesn't excuse the foolishness at KCATA nor does it excuse Jackson County (Platte and Clay too) for not stepping up.

So, you think it’s fair for residents to pay a tax for transportation and then have to cover the routes out of city tax money too? How is this not paying twice for the same service? Are we going to cut the tax since KCATA is not paying for it?

[Belvidere]

It feels like KCMO is just picking up the bill for other entities bad financial decisions or just not wanting to pay. We have the bus system here and it feels like the city is going to have to do most of the heavy lifting for the stadium, if that happens. Same for administration and management of the school district with an additional tax. Why are we letting the bus administration and county off the hook for their responsibilities? And how will these extra expenditures and taxes affect urban core growth?

Considering most of the system and cuts would be occuring on routes that travel exclusively or almost exclusively through KCMO, yes, they should be picking up that tab for those services.

We've already seen them drop the tab for routes in Raytown, Gladstone, Grandview, and those cities ended those services. That's where the county should be stepping up and funding those routes/services. Same in Independence where the city also completely ended their services. KCK is the only partner left sharing service with KCMO and even they will be taking 2 routes in house without help from KCMO / KCATA.

My point with that is, yes, this is on KCMO to pick up the tab for. . That, however, doesn't excuse the foolishness at KCATA nor does it excuse Jackson County (Platte and Clay too) for not stepping up.

I think we need a county system and a county tax. Everybody should be chipping in. Our budget is looking dicey.

[SilentSpades24]

My point with that is, yes, this is on KCMO to pick up the tab for. . That, however, doesn't excuse the foolishness at KCATA nor does it excuse Jackson County (Platte and Clay too) for not stepping up.

So, you think it’s fair for residents to pay a tax for transportation and then have to cover the routes out of city tax money too? How is this not paying twice for the same service? Are we going to cut the tax since KCATA is not paying for it?

Way to ignore the paragraph above where I clarify that the routes being cut are in KCMO nearly exclusively and where I literally lay out that KCMO has already stopped paying for services not in its city limits.

Yes, KCMO should pay for KCMO services, which is what is proposed to be cut.

No KCMO should not pick up the tab for the county or suburban cities.

Read better.

[SilentSpades24]

It feels like KCMO is just picking up the bill for other entities bad financial decisions or just not wanting to pay. We have the bus system here and it feels like the city is going to have to do most of the heavy lifting for the stadium, if that happens. Same for administration and management of the school district with an additional tax. Why are we letting the bus administration and county off the hook for their responsibilities? And how will these extra expenditures and taxes affect urban core growth?

Considering most of the system and cuts would be occuring on routes that travel exclusively or almost exclusively through KCMO, yes, they should be picking up that tab for those services.

We've already seen them drop the tab for routes in Raytown, Gladstone, Grandview, and those cities ended those services. That's where the county should be stepping up and funding those routes/services. Same in Independence where the city also completely ended their services. KCK is the only partner left sharing service with KCMO and even they will be taking 2 routes in house without help from KCMO / KCATA.

My point with that is, yes, this is on KCMO to pick up the tab for. . That, however, doesn't excuse the foolishness at KCATA nor does it excuse Jackson County (Platte and Clay too) for not stepping up.

I think we need a county system and a county tax. Everybody should be chipping in. Our budget is looking dicey.

In a perfect world we would.........

[beautyfromashes]

Way to ignore the paragraph above where I clarify that the routes being cut are in KCMO nearly exclusively and where I literally lay out that KCMO has already stopped paying for services not in its city limits.

Yes, KCMO should pay for KCMO services, which is what is proposed to be cut.

No KCMO should not pick up the tab for the county or suburban cities.

Read better.

You referenced a post where I talk about the bus administration, the city and county then replied with they/them not really saying which you thought should pay. Sorry, I found it confusing.

Also, isn't KCATA funded with the 3/8 transporation tax? Are you saying we've stopped sending KCATA that tax revenue? If we are going to now cover our own bus routes with this new budget line, shouldn't we stop sending that tax altogether?

Article says we are giving another almost $7M, like we giving that on top of what we already give. Why give more for a service we already pay for and was handled poorly? Why bail out a poorly run organization with more cash?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kansa ... db0d&ei=44

[langosta]

Way to ignore the paragraph above where I clarify that the routes being cut are in KCMO nearly exclusively and where I literally lay out that KCMO has already stopped paying for services not in its city limits.

Yes, KCMO should pay for KCMO services, which is what is proposed to be cut.

No KCMO should not pick up the tab for the county or suburban cities.

Read better.

You referenced a post where I talk about the bus administration, the city and county then replied with they/them not really saying which you thought should pay. Sorry, I found it confusing.

Also, isn't KCATA funded with the 3/8 transporation tax? Are you saying we've stopped sending KCATA that tax revenue? If we are going to now cover our own bus routes with this new budget line, shouldn't we stop sending that tax altogether?

Article says we are giving another almost $7M, like we giving that on top of what we already give. Why give more for a service we already pay for and was handled poorly? Why bail out a poorly run organization with more cash?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kansa ... db0d&ei=44

Well the cost of what we “ordered” has gone up for next year. KCATA has no ability to generate revenue on its own so our options are maintain funding (service cut), increase funding (reduce cutting ir no cuts), or start our own.

[beautyfromashes]

Well the cost of what we “ordered” has gone up for next year. KCATA has no ability to generate revenue on its own so our options are maintain funding (service cut), increase funding (reduce cutting ir no cuts), or start our own.

Cut service or start our own are the only options. To more give money to an organization that cannot realize that they were going to have a shortfall of up to $30M for the year or manage their expenses so poorly is wasteful. Of course, Bunch and the council who pushed zero fare when they couldn't pay for it, deserves a lot of responsibility for the shortage as well.

[langosta]

Well the cost of what we “ordered” has gone up for next year. KCATA has no ability to generate revenue on its own so our options are maintain funding (service cut), increase funding (reduce cutting ir no cuts), or start our own.

Cut service or start our own are the only options. To more give money to an organization that cannot realize that they were going to have a shortfall of up to $30M for the year or manage their expenses so poorly is wasteful. Of course, Bunch and the council who pushed zero fare when they couldn't pay for it, deserves a lot of responsibility for the shortage as well.

How much of the waste is KCATA’s fault?

Above someone corrected me that the city forced them into higher wages. The city also forced them into removing fares and refuses to let them reinstate. The city also cut their budget the last few years to fund lights and other measures and iirc the ride on demand.

[SilentSpades24]

Way to ignore the paragraph above where I clarify that the routes being cut are in KCMO nearly exclusively and where I literally lay out that KCMO has already stopped paying for services not in its city limits.

Yes, KCMO should pay for KCMO services, which is what is proposed to be cut.

No KCMO should not pick up the tab for the county or suburban cities.

Read better.

You referenced a post where I talk about the bus administration, the city and county then replied with they/them not really saying which you thought should pay. Sorry, I found it confusing.

Also, isn't KCATA funded with the 3/8 transporation tax? Are you saying we've stopped sending KCATA that tax revenue? If we are going to now cover our own bus routes with this new budget line, shouldn't we stop sending that tax altogether?

Article says we are giving another almost $7M, like we giving that on top of what we already give. Why give more for a service we already pay for and was handled poorly? Why bail out a poorly run organization with more cash?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kansa ... db0d&ei=44

There are two (2) taxes. The 3/8 cent tax, which goes fully to KCATA and the 1/2 cent Public Mass Transportation Tax. The latter of which KCATA is supposed to receive a certain amount of (I believe 95%). That is the tax the public works has raided endlessly for years for various items.

Poorly run organization or not, gutting service is not the right move and could've been avoided a while ago. The alarm on this has been sounding for damn near 2 years, yet at no point did KCMO or Jackson County try to do anything, all while KCMO continued to tighten the screws on KCATA.

The money going to KCATA seemingly will be contingent on how KCATA cleans up shop. I don't disagree that KCATA is part of the problem and needs to be seriously evaluated. I also think painting them as the only problem is incorrect in every way possible, especially when the city can be blamed for not providing the full tax amount their supposed to, for forcing free fares onto the system, and forcing out the previous CEO, who called them out on their crap. The county has sat on their hands and did nothing to help shore up funding for service outside of KCMO, when KCMO stopped paying for it, nor did they do anything when Independence tossed their whole system completely.

But, I'm sure none of this matters. The bus brings in "those people" you don't want in your urban core (that you seemingly hate being in) and don't want to "subsidize". Gutting the system only helps create more of "those people" and taking the service in house does nothing to address the problems or lower the cost. Sure, less administrative costs, but that won't solve the problem.

[beautyfromashes]

But, I'm sure none of this matters. The bus brings in "those people" you don't want in your urban core (that you seemingly hate being in) and don't want to "subsidize". Gutting the system only helps create more of "those people" and taking the service in house does nothing to address the problems or lower the cost. Sure, less administrative costs, but that won't solve the problem.

First, thanks for the information on bus funding.

If anything, I've advocated dumping the suburban extensions of the bus system to Lee's Summit and Blue Springs, etc. If by "those people" you mean suburbanites, you're probably right. As far as the bus system in its current state, I questioned whether it is viable at all and made a suggestion to scale it down to where the demand is actually strong. If you make a product free and people are still saying they don't want it and you actually lose ridership, maybe it's the product. Maybe you spend 10s of millions of dollars to make it a better product, but perhaps that is just throwing good money after bad. But, to just say, "we are a city so we HAVE to have a bus line" just seems foolish. At least ask the questions.