Taxpayers Association Makes Recommendation to SMART
Posted by scta | Filed under SMART
Chairwoman & SMART Board Members
Re: Open Letter & Recommendation
Dear Chairwoman Fudge:
The current financial shortfall facing the SMART Board raises questions regarding the credibility of the financial assumptions underlying the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District 2009 Measure Q Strategic Plan. The plan spans twenty years. Less than one year into the plan, the financial assumptions for the first year missed the mark by a substantial margin. Debates regarding delays and destinations have surfaced and will undoubtedly continue for some time.
Beyond the question of which cities will be included in the first phase of the project and whether full implementation of the plan will be delayed, there is a more basic question. How credible are the financial assumptions upon which the plan is based? Are the assumptions for the next 19 years more realistic than they were for the first year? This question should be on the mind of each Board member and those who appointed them. It is certainly on the mind of voters.
The shortfall is blamed on the recession. Recessions happen. One or more additional recessions will probably occur over the remaining 19 years. It is critical the plan reflects a prudent and realistic assessment of the future. This applies to tax revenues, potential government grants and expense assumptions. If the plan unraveled this early in the game, it is hardly prudent to dismiss fears and the probabilities of future problems.
The Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association recommends the SMART Board engage an outside professional consulting firm to complete an independent evaluation of the plan. Ideally the independent evaluation will be undertaken promptly, but certainly before any new, irrevocable financial commitments are made. A “comfort letter” indicating the confidence the firm has in the viability of the current plan should accompany their assessment, together with their view of potential areas of risk. This second opinion will give voters the confidence to which they are entitled in return for their commitment of tax dollars.
A second independent opinion can also provide a degree of comfort to the SMART Board in the execution of their fiduciary responsibility. It can validate the credibility of the current plan; or in the alternative, identify potential future risks. With advanced knowledge of potential pitfalls, the Board can plan accordingly. The alternative approach, which we are currently witnessing, is to grapple with problems after they materialize.
SMART District Board Meeting
Posted by scta | Filed under SMART
These following comments were delivered to the SMART District Board at their meeting on December 16, 2009, by Jack Atkin, President of the SCTA. They were directed at a decision made by the SMART District to enter into a Community Benefit Agreement with the developers of the Railroad Square Project in Santa Rosa that will be negotiated by theAccountable Development Coalition, a non-government group. This coalition, made up of environmental, union, living wage and other groups, want to limit building contracts to those cozy with the coalition.
There is really only one question here, and that is” What’s in the best interests of the taxpayers?” The money you spend is not your money, its taxpayers’ money. That fact places a fiduciary burden on your shoulders to act in the best interests of the taxpayers.
So I ask, how is it in the best interests of the taxpayers to have a development deal that reduces competition for contracts, and which will raise the cost of the project? How is it that deals have to be made behind closed doors if they are in the best interests of the taxpayers? It would seem to me that if the deal really benefits those who you owe the fiduciary duty to, you would want to make them in the light of day because they will reflect well on you doing your duty.
I see no way to put a happy face on this cozy, tawdry, backroom deal. I urge you to rescind it to restore public trust in your stewardship.
SMART Train -Smart People
Posted by scta | Filed under SMART
Is there anyone out there who believes that rider fares will cover the cost of operating the Smart Train? Read on!
Public transit systems will always require tax subsidies because the capital and operating costs will always exceed the price riders are willing to pay. For example, cost of capital equipment and operations will always rise faster than ridership as the system expands; and the employees of transit systems will likely be highly skilled members of labor unions that will aggressively push for higher wages and benefits- and employ their usual violent tactics when they are denied- the strike. Moreover, a Smart Train Program will be managed by government- and we know what happens when a government program thinks they have ‘angels’ called taxpayers and no competition.
An effective transit system is much more than track and train. Equally important are the indirect costs associated with the infrastructure between the rail station and the rider’s residence. The combination of indirect costs and revenue from rider fares and taxpayer subsidies to cover operations and debt service are unsustainable unless, perhaps, the taxpayer can substantially eliminate costs associated with the ‘insolent chariot’ including auto insurance, maintenance cost, and the square footage for the chariot’s garage and driveway. Do not forget to add the substantial cost of providing security to permit the rider to get to and from the destination at variable hours 24/7 safely.
I think most people would like and want a commuter train. But, more information is needed on costs before the taxpayer/rider can make an intelligent decision, in my opinion. That information must include two elements: (1) The Smart Train Plan needs to show the taxpayer/rider a comprehensive plan that includes connections between Sonoma County (including West and East County/Sonoma), San Francisco, the Peninsula, SFO, East Bay, OAK, Amtrak, and Sacramento- as well Eureka. All these elements need to be in the plan for a transit system to be perceived as practical, and, (2) The Smart Planners must detail the full costs, all costs, of the Commuter System and a conservative estimate of the ridership. The tracks are presently in place.
The SMART TRAIN PLAN submitted to date is incomplete, lacks connectivity, does not show ALL costs and underestimates the ridership. We need more a more competent plan and/or more competent planners.
Another interesting related initiative under considerations by city councils and expert consultants (the smart people) is building so-called live-work structures and ‘walkable neighborhoods. This is déjà vu all over again.
Jack Geary, Director
Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association
I Find it Suspicious
Posted by scta | Filed under SMART
….That the 101 freeway expansion (3rd lane from Highway 12 to Steele Lane) opened without fanfare just after the “Train to Nowhere” tax was passed. Traffic has been improved in a major way, with more to come as the 3rd lane is added from Steele Lane to Windsor. Did the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, in concert with the SMART District, pruposely postpone the freeway opening until after the election? Did they fear the voters might see the truth – that the freeway helped solve the traffic problem – negating their “congestion” argument for the train? Let’s be honest – people will always prefer to drive their own vehilce – even if it runs opn air bubbles – to public transit. Let’s work with the facts, not suppress them for a hidden political agenda.
Jeanne Levin, Past President, Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association