 |
May 23, 2006 To the Board of County Commissioners RE: Public statement on the proposed Extended Service Resolution Thank you Commissioner Dahlstedt for allowing a brief statement from the Ferry Committee. Gentlemen; I know that nearly everyone in this room would like to say something, Many here, and many more not here, have written letters to you, signed petitions, and written letters to the editor expressing their concerns about extended service. I am privileged and honored to speak in behalf of so many of my friends and neighbors on Guemes. I know I can safely say that after the advisory ballot the Ferry Committee sent out in March this year to all registered voters on Guemes and found that 75% of Guemes Islanders are against extended service! I would also like to speak for our neighbors in Anacortes who are concerned about the lack of a public process to address their issues regarding traffic issues around the ferry terminal on 6th St. I am also expressing concern as a County taxpayer over the cost of extended service. I hope that after everyone takes a closer look at this extended service proposal you will all support our position by 75%, including the Commissioners. Although all our previous efforts to dissuade you from taking this action have apparently failed, we ask you one last time on behalf of an overwhelming majority of your constituents on Guemes Island to postpone any decision on the extended service resolution until vital questions of cost and planning can be fully addressed. A large question is in everyone’s mind today is: “What’s the rush?” and “Who benefits?” But there is a story behind just how we got to the point we are today. We all remember about a year ago when the extended service proposal was silently brought forward on the Commissioner’s agenda. Previous to this date, extended service had failed to find majority support in the Task Force I chaired and for which County taxpayers spent $300,000 with consultants Berk & Associates. Extended service had been tabled indefinitely when presented at subsequent Roundtable meetings as well. Extended service has never been supported by a majority of respondents in any survey, including the Berk & Assoc. survey. Despite lack of public support or process, an extended service proposal authored by David Wehrly, a new resident of Guemes Island, was presented to the Commissioners by Public Works on May 2, 2005. At the May 2, presentation we were all told by Comm. Munks that bringing forward the proposal was just the first step of a “public process”. Apparently this is going to be the extent of the public process, so here is the FC’s letter submitted on Apr. 26. (SHOW LETTER) The FC would like to submit this letter again at this time for the record; this letter outlines at least four good reasons to postpone the extended service resolution at this time. In summary they are 1) Cost 2) Planning policy conflicts 3) New AIA sustainability study 4) Lack of public support We
have just been presented with an estimate that shows the labor costs
for extended service will cost the taxpayers $72,596. Here is a previous
calculation from PW that shows quite a different conclusion. (SHOW
CALCS) What set of figures are we to believe? What were the underlying
assumptions then versus now? Is this just a case of massaging figures
to justify a “done deal”? Just remember, these are the same
folks who said that last year’s piling project was going to cost
$540,000 and only take two weeks. It actually cost $800,000 and took
5 weeks. These are the also the same folks that said that last year’s
bi-annual ferry outage was only going to last one month. It was out
of service for two months. It was estimated to cost about $800,000 and
ended up costing 1.25 million. These are the same folks who originally
estimated the cost of the 4th person at $43,000 then changed it to $100,000
and which has now been calculated to be closer to $190,000. With Public
Works track record of estimating, I think we can safely double, or triple,
their estimate which gets us closer to the original cost estimate. A
much better way of calculating the cost is to take the actual costs
submitted to C.R.A.B (County Road Administration Board) from the deficit
reimbursement statements and divide them by the ferry trips scheduled.
(SHOW CALCS) And as for the revenue estimate of $80,000: this is pure speculation, at best, based on a flawed survey. But even if we accept the figure of $80,000 we all know that is not “New” revenue since any ferry riders will only be postponing an earlier return trip home. We project that less than 9% of any fares collected with extended service would actually be “new” revenue. And do you think anyone actually believes that you can have a 2-year trial period and then stop? Our experience with the “temporary” fourth person shows that what is given is hard to take away and then becomes “permanent”. However you calculate the cost of extended service it is an additional expense to a ferry operation that is already costing County taxpayers more than a million dollars a year to operate. We need cost containment not cost expansion! This is the same ferry operation that was said in August 2005,to be “hemorrhaging red ink” and required an “emergency fare increase” to help pay for it. The fare recovery model that had been signed into Resolution 2004054 was dismissed. (Resolution 2004054 cost the County taxpayers $300,000 and a year of work in the Berk & Associates consulted Task Force.) An unjustifiable fare increase resulted January 1, 2006, that included capital expenditures in the fare-box recovery targets unlike any other ferry system in the State. The fare increases more than doubled fares for those of us who commute to work daily. For example a person who must use his vehicle to pack tools and equipment for work could go to work 5 days per week for approximately $555 per year. Now it cost $1354. As for walk-ons, a commuter previously spent approximately $225 per year now spends approximately $400. The fare increase was projected to increase fare box revenue by $300,000. I believe that it would be safe to say that if this extended service resolution goes forward, it could easily eliminate any projected revenue increase and expose the riders to another doubling of the fare to pay for it, especially since no fare recovery model has yet been developed that defines what level of subsidy the County finds acceptable or differentiates between operating and capital expenditures as every other ferry system in the state has done. In fact, the Ferry Committee is in the process of contacting the State Auditor to look into this. But why we really are here today is not to bicker over the cost of extended service, This is really about the glaring lack of public process and just the latest example in a series of situations in which Commissioners Anderson and Munks push their personal agenda instead of representing the wishes of their constituents. Whether it is the garbage issue with the cities, the handpicking of a Citizen Advisory Committee that ignores the majority view of landowners on South Fidalgo Island, or unwanted and expensive extended ferry service to Guemes, I hope that all County taxpayers and citizens realize we have a couple of “rogue” County commissioners running roughshod over established public policy and replacing it with a system of favors for friends, family and political contributors. The citizens of Skagit County deserve better. And if Commissioners Anderson and Munks choose to pass this extended service resolution today they will have to answer not only to the voters of Guemes but to all Skagit County voters as well. Yours truly, Glen Veal Chairman |
This
method shows the actual cost per trip at $208. Multiply this times the
proposed 832 extended service trips you get $173,000.