Meeting Notes
Guemes Island Ferry Committee
February 3, 2004
Location: The Guemes Island Library
Attendees: Ferry Committee: Glen Veal, Marilee Fosbre, Dixon Elder, Carl Cady, Steve Orsini.
General Public: Allan Bush Jr.
i. Berk and Associations- Allan felt that the Berk and Associates survey had indicated a number of management problems but that the end result was concentration on Fare and Schedules. He felt that too much money was paid out by the County without results in the management area. He also hoped that Skagit County would not spend more money with this consultant. The Ferry Committee agreed that significant money had been spent but that the County did want to deal with a host of issues. The implementation phase of the new structure should prove the value of the money spent. The County had wanted to visit the fare issue for some time and Berk & Associates was the vehicle for that review.
ii. Management: Allan felt that more of Berk and Associates time, and that of the Task Force, should have been spent on correcting management problems. The current Director of Public Works and the Ferry Manager have not complied with the results of the study. Having a qualified administration and implementation staff would and would allow for problem solving solutions to occur with less need for a costly consulting firm and Taskforce, saving time and money. The Ferry Committee pointed out that the County, over time, had not been able to get controllable results in the operation of the ferry, but that Don Munks had settled on this method to set a framework and series of tasks to accomplish a better management and operation of the Ferry. The Ferry Committee did, through Max Benjamin, then chair of the Committee, have some input on which firm was selected, but the decision to use an outside consultant had already been made by the County. The Ferry Committee took the position that it was better to be in the Task Force rather than not as this work developed.
iii. The Resolutions: Allan felt that the Ferry Committee should support and stand behind the existing resolution 11939 as it was created to control costs and eliminate unnecessary increases in personnel. Glen Veal pointed out that 11939 was a negotiated evolution of a previous methodology to determine how much of the operating costs should be born by the island traffic. The 88% in 11939 was the result of an agreement not to including all of a third crewmember into the operational cost calculation. The issue today with 11939 is that the bridge analogy was selected by the Task Force as a way to justify the tax support of the ferry within the framework of Skagit County. It was obvious from the beginning that the County Commissioners felt the need to overhaul 11939. In the bridge analogy, he county pays the capital costs for the ferry operation as if it were a bridge while operational costs, crews wages, insurance, and fuel are paid by the ridership fees. (Keep in mind that despite arguments of who and what should be in this calculation, the ridership is still not paying 100% of this operational cost as it is reduced by fuel tax, deficit reimbursement for county ferries, which are other tax supports.) The ferry committee also clarified that the current resolution does not include the fourth crew person in the calculation. If the operational goals and the new 20 minute runs in the schedule are achieved then and only then will the fourth person be added to the operational cost calculations. Allan would prefer that the IBU contract be in place before any new fare was considered. The Task Force position was that putting the schedule and fares in place gave better structure to the upcoming negotiation. (The actual amount of wage increase cannot exceed that in the County in general which currently is about 3%.) With the new schedule, it is clear what will be expected from the crew in performance, time and thus costs. It was also pointed out that certain issues, like the 176 hour a month minimum for senior crew is an issue of contract negotiations over which the Ferry Committee has no control.
iv. Allan felt that more effort should have been made by the Ferry Committee to acknowledge alternative opinions voiced by members of the Task Force and the the general public. That may have avoided the petition supporting postponement of acceptance of the resolution. This criticism comes down to a matter of opinion. Mr. Bushes comments were offered in a constructive way and the dialogue helped to clarify the decisions that were taken.
After Mr. Bush’s departure, other items discussed included:
The meeting began at 7:30 pm and was adjourned at about 9:30 pm.