TriMet says we’re ‘dead wrong’ on ballot issue

…I disagree. I think we’re just using plainer language than TriMet would.

But in an effort to let you be the judge, I’m posting the following week-long email discussion with TriMet Executive Director for Communications and Technology Carolyn Young, whom I’ve met several times and whom I like and respect as a smart, well-intentioned public servant.

Unfortunately, the two of us disagree on this subject.

Here’s the item in question, from our September issue:

Bus vote?

TriMet’s board lobbed voters a $125 million property tax renewal Aug. 11 – $8 a year per $100,000 – saying it’d go to help people with disabilities. It’s the first time the agency has asked for extra help fixing unusable bus stops and speeding up the purchase of low-floor, air-conditioned buses.

What it means

Don’t trust your ballot. About 40% of the cash wouldn’t be used for the stated purpose, execs said after the board vote. Because they planned to buy new buses anyway, the agency would get about $50 million for whatever it wants.

Amid our exchange, I was decided that I should have written "might not be used for the stated purpose." This wasn’t what Young had been asking for, though, and it doesn’t meet her satisfaction. I continue to feel that’s the best way to describe the situation.

Full, unedited exchange follows:

>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Young, Carolyn <YoungC@trimet.org> wrote:

>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> I have a concern about the print version of your newsletter.
>>
>> In the issue you say that about 40% of the ballot measure money wouldn’t be used for the stated purpose. That isn’t accurate. 100% of the money must, by law, be used for the stated purpose. All of the $125 million will be spent to improve service and access for seniors and people with disabilities by improving access to stops, replacing aging buses, replacing LIFT buses and improved LIFT dispatch system.
>>
>> The savings – as I believe you explain in the on-line version – come as a result of savings against potential future spending. As I think you know, the current budget projection (which is just that – a projection) shows us bonding for buses in 2012. That isn’t written in stone and would depend on the state of the budget and board priorities at the time. But let’s say the projection is correct. In 2012 we would pay about $2 million from general fund toward the bonds. If the bond passes, that $2 million in 2012 could be spent on service restoration, increased fuel costs or anything else. There would be additional avoided costs in the future.
>>
>> But to imply, as your article does, that $40 million of the $125 million is cash in our pocket is just not accurate.
>>
>> The other puzzling point you make is to express some surprise that TriMet will buy new buses. Of course we will buy new buses. We can’t run service without them. We have usually paid for buses out of the general fund but the recession has eliminated that option. We eventually have to either find new money – a bond – or cut more service to pay for buses.
>>
>> The other item that I saw on the website that isn’t accurate is that TriMet will hire someone to manage the ballot measure campaign. TriMet will not – and could not under state law – hire the campaign staff. A campaign has been formed and the campaign – not TriMet – will raise money and manage the campaign. The campaign is “Yes for Transit”. I believe they hope to have a website sometime next week.
>>
>> I hope that helps clarify things.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Carolyn Young

>> From: Michael Andersen [mailto:michael@portlandafoot.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:09 PM
>> To: Young, Carolyn
>> Cc: Fetsch, Mary
>> Subject: Re: newsletter
>>
>> Thank you very much for reading and for writing, Carolyn. As you know, I very much want to get this both right and readable, and I can’t do that without help from folks at TriMet.
>>
>> I take your point about future budgets not being written in stone. Voter approval of the measure would certainly add legal weight to TriMet’s bus purchase schedule, and this is worth noting. I’ve updated the site to reflect it. (This is also reflected in Steph Routh’s explanation of why WPC endorsed the measure, which I added this morning.)
>>
>> I don’t agree, though, that the article’s implications are inaccurate. TriMet’s projections for the general fund look one way today. If the ballot issue passes, they’d look different on Nov. 3. Quite different, as a share of the ballot measure’s value. This is a significant effect of the ballot measure! I agree that someone reading the print piece could leap to the conclusion that TriMet will get $40 million in its pocket on Nov. 3. Certainly that’s not true, as the web page linked from the print piece explains.
>>
>> But any explanation can lead people to leap to conclusions. For example, the way TriMet framed the ballot issue — "Portland needs new buses for its aging population" — led some people to ask, "Shouldn’t TriMet have been anticipating the need for these new buses? Why should I pay for it?" To which the answer, of course, is that TriMet has been anticipating the need for new buses. As far as buses are concerned, this ballot issue isn’t about the need for new buses. It’s about the speed at which buses are acquired, and it’s also about whether those buses will be bought out of GF.
>>
>> Given the choice, I decided to frame the issue in a way it hasn’t been framed by other outlets.
>>
>> As I note in the issue and online, one thing TriMet could do to help explain this issue would be to give some indication of how the new GF money might be used if the ballot issue passes. This would make the effects of the ballot issue easier to explain: "faster bus purchases, faster LIFT upgrades, better bus stops and, depending on future general fund revenue, also X."
>>
>> For whatever it’s worth, I don’t set out to oppose the ballot measure or any possible X, and I plan to vote for it myself.
>>
>> Again, thanks a lot for the response and the criticism, which is important for me to continue improving my product. Please don’t hesitate to continue the conversation.
>>
>> Michael

>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Young, Carolyn <YoungC@trimet.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the response Michael – it was really the print piece I was concerned about.
>>
>> Carolyn

>> From: Michael Andersen [mailto:michael@portlandafoot.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:15 PM
>>
>> Understood. I’m referring to the print article in most of that response, too — I continue to think it’s accurate unless I see otherwise.
>>
>> Michael

> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Young, Carolyn <YoungC@trimet.org> wrote:
>>
>> The print article says, referring to the ballot measure: “About 40% of the cash won’t be used for the stated purpose.” That isn’t accurate. 100% of the $125 million will be used for the stated purpose. The savings are in addition to the $125 million – in potential avoided costs of using farebox backed bonds to buy buses in 2012. The savings would be about $2 million in avoided costs beginning in 2012.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Carolyn

On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:34 PM, "Michael Andersen" <michael@portlandafoot.org> wrote:

> This is based on our Aug. 12 phone conversation:
>
> TriMet’s future bus purchase schedule already includes the bus
> purchases and LIFT improvements the ballot issue would pay for. Those
> purchases add up to 40 to 50 percent of the ballot issue’s $125
> million. Not all of the backfilled money would fall directly into the
> general fund, because some LIFT vans would have been improved in part
> using federal grants.
>
> Is it accurate?
>
> Michael

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Young, Carolyn <YoungC@trimet.org> wrote:
That is probably pretty close, but I didn’t mean to imply that any of the 125 would go anything besides the stated purpose. Your print piece needs a couple of extra words. The accurate way to say this would be that all 125 million would go to the stated purpose….buses, mini buses and stop access improvements. IN ADDITION, because trimet won’t need to issue bonds in 2012, iit won’t need to pay back bonds from the general fund. The general fund savings are in avoided costs and yes, that money can be spent on service restoration etc. The amount of avoided coats in 2012 would be about 2million and would be more the next year. These avoided costs would continue for 20 years…..

Let’s see if I can make sense of it this way….let’s say you need a new car but can’t afford it. In your budget plan you believe you would be able to get a loan for the new car in 2012. Meantime somebody buys a car for you. Now you have the new car and you won’t need to pay back a loan in 2012. The amount of money that you would have paid for the loan is now available to you to spend.

I hope that explains it.

Thanks ,

Carolyn

Sent from my iPad

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Michael Andersen <michael@portlandafoot.org> wrote:

Thank you, Carolyn. I’m glad we’re working from the same facts.

I like your car metaphor. To extend it: TriMet is asking voters to buy that new car. Before voters decide whether to do so, I think they need to know whether:
a) they’re actually inducing a car purchase that wouldn’t have happened otherwise, or
b) covering the cost of a car purchase that was going to happen anyway.

If I read the ballot issue and TriMet’s description of it without knowing anything else, I would assume (A). But based on our conversations, it seems like the truth is closer to (B).

Voters are being asked to create $125 million in new money. From a systemwide, 20-year perspective, about $50 million of that newly created money will be spent on things other than bus purchases, LIFT upgrades, and bus stop improvements. To me, this means that $50 million will be used on something other than the stated purpose.

I respect the fact that you have to operate in the present, and that the region’s need for new buses is urgent. But you’re asking voters to operate 20 years in the future. So that’s the perspective from which I’m reporting. I hope that makes sense.

Reasonable people can definitely disagree on how best to describe this, and it seems like we do. For transparency’s sake, I’d like to post this exchange on the blog and link to it in next month’s issue so readers can judge for themselves. Does that sound fair?

Michael

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Young, Carolyn <YoungC@tri-met.org> wrote:

Hi Michael

Your statement that 40% of the bond money might not be used for the stated purpose is just dead wrong. If voters approve the ballot measure, 100% of the $125 million they approve would go to the stated purpose. This is a legal requirement.

The way you are wording this gives the clear impression that not all of the $125 million would go to the stated purpose, and that is wrong.

If you want to talk about the long-term effect on TriMet’s budget, it would be accurate to say that: in addition to the $125 million in proceeds from the bond measure, TriMet’s general fund will benefit from the avoided cost of buying 150 replacement buses.

In my car analogy you would be buying a car in two years, just as TriMet would be buying some replacement buses (not 150) in two years. The voters get everything stated in the bond measure, plus an additional benefit of future general fund avoided costs.

Our top priority for any additional general fund money would be to either avoid additional service cuts if the economy continues to decline, or to restore service.

Thanks,

Carolyn

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Michael Andersen <michael@portlandafoot.org> wrote:
I appreciate your time and thought, Carolyn. I’ll let you have the last word, if that’s all right. I’ll plan to include this in the next issue:

"TriMet says last month’s report that part of its ballot issue wouldn’t go to the stated purpose was ‘dead wrong.’ We disagree. Judge for yourself:pdx.be/BusVoteDebate"

I hope this meets some measure of what you’re asking for.

Michael