By a 5-4 vote yesterday afternoon, the King County Council voted to adopt a Metro funding plan that would implement the first round of scheduled cuts in September, but would defer adopting further cuts in the hope that increased sales tax revenues, higher fares, transfers from capital funds, and additional savings could close the gap. King County Executive Dow Constantine immediately vetoed the plan:
“We need a reliable way to pay for bus service – but until then, we shouldn’t spend money we don’t have, we shouldn’t use one-time money to pay ongoing expenses, and decisions to save or cut service should be based on objective criteria and data, not on politics,” said Executive Constantine. “This ordinance falls short on all counts. I must respectfully veto this legislation, and ask that the Council keep working on a solution that is responsible and sustainable.”
Council member Rod Dembowski spearheaded the plan along with the four suburban Republicans, and no doubt his intentions are pure. His objective is to avoid unnecessary pain. The problem is, without substantial additional revenue, much of the pain will be unavoidable. And by putting off the decision as long as possible, we risk lulling voters and Metro riders into a state of complacency.
The anti-Prop 1 folks like to promote this meme that new revenue is unnecessary—that if Metro just tightens its belt a bit, everything will be okay. For example, yesterday the Seattle Times editorial board urged Metro to “begin the hard work of reforming the agency,” once again ignoring the fact that in response to collapsing revenue and a state performance audit, Metro has implemented substantial reforms that achieved hundreds of millions of dollars in long term cost savings.
The Demobowski plan, unfortunately, just feeds into this fiction that Metro has a spending problem, not a revenue one.
The other Democrats on the council proposed an alternative plan that would have adopted the proposed cuts, phased in over the next year and a half or so, but would have also given Constantine the flexibility to delay cuts if revenues rebound or cost savings materialize. That seems like a more responsible approach to long term planning, and a more realistic presentation to the public of what most likely lies in store.
Thanks for the coverage Goldy. I strongly support new revenue for Metro. I authored the TBD Prop 1 legislation and fought hard for passage. We’ve got 500,000 hours of unmet need today. My bus in yesterday was packed to the gills. I’d return to voters this fall with a transit only proposal countywide if my Democratic colleagues would support it. And I think it would pass. Sadly, there is a view by some that we need to make voters “feel the pain”. That’s what they say. I just have a hard time playing politics like that with people’s lives. Nobody will tell you that we have to cut all 550,000 hours. We don’t. As my beloved colleague Larry Gossett said yesterday, this is “form over substance. ” They want the optics of cutting service and then will “buy it back” after we adopt the budget. I want to to adopt the budget and rightsize the system accordingly. That’s what we’ve always done. It’s also honest governing without the fear-mongering. Voters will see through those moves – they want us looking at all options to keep buses rolling.
I am pleased that my companion proposal for actions to take in order to save service between now and budget season was cosponsored by all of my Democratic colleagues, save McDermott (who has concerns about a 30% farebox recovery target) and voted out unanimously. That work will keep buses rolling. And it is the precursor to seeking more revenue for metro at the polls as in Olympia, which I have worked hard to get and will keep working hard to get.
In solidarity,
Rod
Rod @1,
Am I wrong, or are the first round of cuts adopted in your plan the same as the first round of cuts adopted in the alternative? In that sense, in terms of immediate impact on riders, the two plans are identical, right?
Also, I always wince when I hear a politician say that they have a hard time playing politics. I’d never go to a doctor who said he had a hard time playing at doctoring.
We can budget based on hope. Or we can budget based on reality.
http://kingcounty.gov/exec/new.....-veto.aspx
Maybe we could ask the drivers and mechanics what they’re thinking right about now.
@3…Let’s cut Bickle’s salary and benefits and see how he likes it.
The voter has been fleeced by Metro before with promises of increased service to justify tax increases only to find that the tax increases went to higher pay for the drivers, not the rider service that was promised. How many times does Metro think it can tell the same lie to voters before they wise up?
King County Metro has twice increased the sales tax rate. In 2000, Metro officials were successful in asking voters to approve a 0.2 percent rate hike and another 0.1 percent in 2006. Metro officials said these two tax increases would expand county bus service by 1.28 million hours by 2016. So far, Metro officials have only delivered about 307,000 hours, a third of the bus service they promised voters. Yes this was pre-recession, but the increase in 2000 was long before the recession, so the fact Metro didn’t deliver on it’s tax increase promises can’t be blamed on lower tax revenues dating back to 2000.
While taxpayers and transit users have not received what they were promised, one group has benefited from the two tax increases, public bus drivers.
-From 2000-210, King County Metro has twice sought and received increases in the sales tax rate but only delivered about one third of the bus service promised to voters.
-Over the same time period, salaries paid to Metro bus drivers grew 70%, from $79 million in 2000 to about $135 million in 2009.
-Average wages for Metro bus drivers grew more than twice the rate of inflation.
-These high wage bus drivers cost taxpayers $1.6 million in 2000. By 2009, these high wage drivers cost taxpayers $20.7 million per year, an increase of nearly 1,200%. Not to mention the increased pension for the $100,000/yr plus drivers when they retire.
-Voters were told the higher taxes would be used to deliver more bus service, not to increase wages for bus drivers.
So are we supposed to forget all these facts and vote for more tax increases that will likely go to drivers rather than the promised service as it has in the past? God forbid we ask that a department that has been poorly run be more efficient before we increase taxes to give them more $.
An amusing sidenote to this story are the righties of the world writing editorials and having lunchtime Outrage Fests on the radio telling metro to just charge more.
Same group of people who assure us everyone will go out of business if restaurants charge a bit more to cover the minimum wage increase.
Metro – Charge more to stay afloat
Private Business – Charge more and they will die.
uh, O.K.
Slightly off topic but in the vein of suggesting price increases on Metro are the way to go and any excuse to recomment Blue Scholars…
http://vimeo.com/35431626
I’m sorry to see this blatant self-promotion by Dembowski. The ending “In solidarity” is fine when it comes someone like Sawant, but not fine coming from a guy whose entire career was spent in business, then as a business lawyer, and now in politics.
@ 6
Metro fares were last changed in 2011.
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/fa.....hange.html
Of course, not everyone will see a fare increase:
Create a new reduced fare of $1.50 per trip for qualifying riders who have low incomes.
Maybe in addition to charging another 50 cents for that banh mi Goldy says he’ll still buy when minimum wage increases, merchants can decrease prices for their low-income customers, too. As long as we’re comparing a Metro fare increase to methods by which struggling merchants might have to deal with the upcoming minimum wage increase.
Nice to see you’re amused by the financial struggles of others, cz.
I’ve read the veto letter and it seems very measured. My question is: what would a sustainable proposal even look like for a service that is so heavily funded on what has proven to be an unreliable source (i.e. sales tax)?
Automatic raises to $30+ an hour and all the overtime you want? No, there won’t be any foreseeable negative outcomes. It’s just good business practice to pay a large segment of your workforce over 100K a year for their 60k a year jobs. No fiscal examination of this issue is necessary.
– This message brought to you by ATU Local 587 and Paul Bachtel.
@5…
I really like the way this moron includes evidentiary citations.
Way to make a case, pally.
@12
Those numbers have been repeatedly cited everywhere from the Times and PI to the last voters guide to financial analysts looking at Metro. They’ve been used all over the place for the last few years.
All Metro financial info, salary information included, is public information. It isn’t hard to look up.
If this is the first time you’re seeing them, or you dispute the figures and/or the mismanagement they represent you might try a few minutes searching on google before slinging ad hom attacks.
@13, nuthin new for @12… Actually very stooopid… Notice there wasn’t any thing on TPM or Media Morons or Daily Kooks regarding this subject, so rant on… rant off! Bottom feeder of HA. One of the lowest leftist libtard lifeforms on HA!
Whenever Puddy downtown, Puddy notices a fair number of buses heading the terminal. Why are the buses always going to the terminal to swap drivers? In April, the last time Puddy was downtown you’d see many buses heading to the terminal in the morning. Why is that? Buses heading to the terminal are EMPTY! Why doesn’t KCM swap bus drivers mid stream and keep routes operational? Bus drivers board other buses and meet a driver and switch in a cross route. Airlines deadhead their pilots and flight attendants, why isn’t KCM looking at better efficiency of buses on the streets?
Just axking…