As sponsors of the City Council resolution that placed Proposition 1 on Tuesday’s ballot, we were surprised by the Herald editorial board’s Sept. 6 editorial, “Clearer picture needed to justify transit tax hike.” Indeed, the picture could not be any clearer: In the absence of the additional operating revenue from this modest tax increase, the future of Everett’s own transit agency serving the unique needs of our community is in jeopardy.
The unanimous decision of the City Council to put the tax issue on the ballot was based not only on exhaustive policy and financial review, but also on 35 years experience operating a transit system in Everett.
Like The Herald, we agree that a “convenient, smartly run transit system” is critical to our city’s future. In June, the council adopted a five-year comprehensive plan to guide ET’s growth and development to accommodate our future needs. These guidelines will ensure that ET maximizes the city’s transit service, providing cost-efficient and effective transit service to all those who need it and to those who choose to use it. As the city grows to a larger-sized urban center, ET’s transportation services will help keep people, cars, goods and services moving efficiently.
ET’s comprehensive plan assumes a high level of coordination and cooperation from all regional transportation systems. However, it takes two to tango and only recently has Community Transit been willing to discuss better coordination of transit services without a merger. Our expectations are high that a new spirit of cooperation is on the horizon. However, we believe that our transit needs can best be met with continued independent service from ET rather than through a merger.
It took 26 years for ET to require additional sales tax funding. The new, higher level of transit service resulting from passage of Proposition 1 would require no additional tax funding for many years to come. A fare box increase will also be considered soon. However, as with all public transit agencies, the fare box is a small percentage of the total revenue needed to keep buses on the road.
For years, ET has been cutting costs and making the “painful decisions” that the Herald editorial board believes should be made. Routes and service times have been reduced or eliminated; several open positions in transit have not been filled due to cost cutting; and our transit workers pay a larger share of their health-care costs than other city employees. Once the pain begins to inflict the very people that Everett Transit is in business to serve, then it is time to make the really tough decision – that of taking the issue to the voters of Everett.
Waiting until the end of next year to explore other avenues, as suggested by The Herald, ignores the financial urgency. If we waited, ET’s budget would be in red ink long before the additional funding would be received in the third quarter of 2006.
We hope the voters of Everett will understand that all other reasonable options have been exhausted before seeking this modest tax increase. The future of Everett Transit rides with voter support for Proposition 1.
Mark Olson and Marian Krell are members of the Everett City Council.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
