Draft 6-4-03

Guemes Island Ferry

Monthly Public Works - Ferry Committee Meeting Summary

May 2, 2003

Meeting Attendees

Steve Flude, Public Works

Steve Cox, Public Works

Holly Bowman, Guemes Ferry Crew

Glen Veal, Ferry Committee Chair

Marilee Fosbre, Ferry Committee

Carl Cady, Ferry Committee

Dixon Elder, Ferry Committee

Steve Orsini, Ferry Committee

Rick Kiesser, Consulting Team

Bonnie Berk, Consulting Team

Guests

Dan Pike, Skagit RTPO

Steve Coryell, Skagit County Information Technology Dept.

The following issues were discussed at the monthly meeting with Skagit County Public Works and the Guemes Island Ferry Committee held on May 2, 2003:

Fourth Crew Member Discussion

Members of the Ferry Committee expressed continued concern about the addition of the fourth crew member to Ferry operations.  Specific comments made were:

• Pre-ticketing is happening only about half the time;
• The Ferry constituency (the community) is embarrassed by the addition of the fourth person – it looks non-productive;
• Having the fourth person appears to be counter-productive – it maybe slowing down the loading process;
• Tickets aren’t being collected in a uniform way;
• There are some big holes in the system – there’s a flaw in the process;
• If the cash-handling problem can be handled cost-effectively, then the problem may go away – now there is a significant cost impact; and
• Public Works needs to look at the alternatives.

Holly noted that the crew does not have clear direction about how to proceed, i.e. with what the procedures are for utilizing the fourth crew member.  For example, there can be problems with documentation of the cash fare transaction when the customer needs a receipt.  Collection and cash handling procedures are not being implemented uniformly by crew members.  Steve Flude noted that Public Works would provide direction to the crew on this issue; a memo will be prepared regarding pre-ticketing and pursing/ticket collection procedures, including cash fare ticket punching.  Steve will also speak to the Accounting Department regarding printing the amount of the cash fare on the ticket.  Steve Orsini noted that the current punch card system is archaic and this is an area to address in the future.

The Ferry Committee suggested that Public Works ask Berk & Associates to look at the full implications of the fourth person – from an operational and financial perspective.  This would involve reviewing the audit findings, the audit process, and talking with representatives from the Auditor’s Office to understand the issues and options.  It would also encompass a review of the service implications of the new procedures, and talking with the crew and others.  How ticketing is accomplished is a key issue for the review.  As one member said: “we understand that obtaining an OK (clean) audit finding is the objective.  The question is how this can be most reasonably accomplished.”

General Ferry Business Discussed

Steve Flude and Steve Cox briefed the Committee on various operational issues, including an update on recent employee grievances files and an update on the status of negotiations with the union.

Disabled pass discussion.  The group discussed the current situation.  There isn’t a disabled cash fare for the Guemes Ferry (there is one for Washington State Ferries), and disabled riders can’t buy a pass at the Ferry now.  Holly noted that there are only about five passes in operation.  There is a five-page application and various criteria to meet.  The Accounting Department issues the pass at a cost of $25 per year. 

Dan Pike noted that from a federal funding/obtaining a grant perspective, there is an implicit penalty for not having a disabled cash fare category.  The County would be at a disadvantage, if there were increased federal ferry funding within the reauthorization of TEA-21.  He suggested that the issue be looked at in the context of the Task Force’s work on fare policies.  The group agreed that the current system is clear and works well, and decided that “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.”  They also agreed that there would have to be a disabled cash fare category established at some point, just not now.

Frequent user pass discussion.  The group discussed a recent situation with the Skagit Hospice.  Sometimes Skagit Hospice has a need for a frequent user pass, but doesn’t need the full number of permitted trips.  Could they obtain a refund?  Holly noted that a good option would be for the organization to have a charge account.  The group decided to maintain current policies regarding the frequent user pass.

Status of the Anacortes parking lot for ferry riders.  Steve Flude said that the building was hopefully coming down this summer.  The County is still awaiting construction concurrence approval from the federal government.  The County will then need to obtain a variance from the City. 

Ferry haul out bid awarded.  Steve Cox reported that the County received two bids for the haul out, and the award is for $158,233.  This is lower than the $179,000 “Engineer’s Estimate” that the County had been assuming – good news.  He also noted that Dakota Creek did not respond to the invitation to bid, as had been expected.  The haul out-related shutdown will be on the night of July 7, and Steve will bring the Straight Arrow vessel to the Terminal the night of the 7^th, to meet any potential emergencies on the Island.  The projected return of the MV Guemes is July 18-19.  The County will distribute a press release with this information.  The group discussed garbage service while the MV Guemes is out of service, and it was suggested that the County look into using the Island Transporter for this service.

Coordination between day and evening crews.  Members of the Ferry Committee noted that there have been loading problems with the relatively new, part-time evening crew, and asked if the crews could be better coordinated.  Could there be co-mingling between the experienced crew and the newer crew members, to share information and expertise?  Could the hours be staggered to accomplish this?  Steve Cox noted that this issue has been brought up before, and Steve Flude/Steve Cox agreed to consider solutions to this issue.

Debrief on Task Force Meeting #2

The following comments were made and discussed:

• Using #11939 as a framework is a good starting point.
• The group’s time could be better spent by not reviewing the written materials (which were sent out in advance), but rather discussing key bullets/issues.  This would provide more time for discussion.  There was consensus that more time for discussion would be helpful.
• We should assume that people have done the homework to prepare for the meeting, and make the discussion very issues-oriented.
• Better time-keeping would be good.
• Need to identify the Ferry revenue requirements – fill the financial gaps we have now.
• Are there alternatives to addressing the Audit findings?  The revenue requirements should have two options – one without the 4^th person and one with.
• What are the benchmarks in the industry regarding revenue requirements and cost recovery?  Part of the project that is going to be very important is comparison to other ferry systems
• What is the proper split between cars and passengers?
• The car lengths should be simplified.
• We have 18 fare categories now – what if this were simplified to say, eight categories?  This needs to be looked at.  Holly noted that she has lots of suggestions about fare categories.
• Whatever methodology is developed needs to be fair and understandable.

Presentation and Discussion Regarding the Fourth Person

Steve Flude passed out background materials on the County’s efforts to meet the State Auditor requirements.  The materials included copies of various RFP documents and County correspondence on the 4^th person issue.  Steve noted that the County had spent considerable time and effort on trying to resolve the issue.  Steve Coryell, from the County’s Information Technology Department, then discussed the history of the County’s efforts to find technology solutions to address the Audit findings.  Two RFPs were issued, and essentially no viable, reliable approaches were presented.  Carl asked whether the County’s system needs were documented as part of the process.  Steve said they were not.  Holly commented that her perception is that the County was “basically trying to throw technology at the problem,” and that some of the equipment-based concepts were physically unworkable (i.e. carrying a portable printer on a holster).  There are significant operating constraints for the purser – working out in the rain and wind, particularly.  Another is the need for speedy and efficient loading.  The group again discussed the concept of conducting a thorough review of the issues and options associated with the Audit findings.  Steve Flude reiterated that the direction from the County Commissioners was to address and mitigate the findings.  This year’s audit has been completed and the County is awaiting the Auditor’s report.  Preliminary conversation and information from the Auditor’s Office is that the 4^th person does address the cash handling audit issues.  The discussion concluded with Steve Flude agreeing to consider the Ferry Committee’s proposal for a thorough review.

ADA Issues Discussion

The group discussed the Ferry’s compliance with ADA requirements, and Steve Flude reiterated the County’s understanding that these requirements would only apply if the County were to undertake a capital improvement project for the facility.  The group also discussed accessibility issues during the haul out, and how that will be handled with the Straight Arrow.  Maralee cautioned that procedures need to be carefully thought out and implemented; that she understood that there were good intentions, but that there are significant issues associated with providing reasonable and safe access to the vessel for people with disabilities.  Steve Cox said that he understood, and appreciated the discussion.  The group agreed to revisit this topic at future meetings.

Comments on Today’s Agenda and Meeting Format

Marilee suggested that, in the future, guest presenters be scheduled for the beginning of the meeting, rather than the end to make best use their time.  The group agreed with this suggestion.

Carl asked for a few minutes at the end of the meeting, to hand out and discuss a list of Ferry Committee questions and issues.  Bonnie noted that the issues would be reviewed and addressed.