A COPY OF MEMO OF StarTran ADVISORY BOARD
LNA EDITOR NOTE : To read the 35 e-mails and letters referred to in the second to last paragraph of this letter please go to http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/council/agenda/2008/072808/d072808.pd. It starts at page 40 and continues to page 85. LNA's testimony is on page 47.
LNA EDITOR NOTE : I have highlighted in bold print the StarTran Advisory Board recommendations of 1cent property tax increase to fund operations at the end of this letter.
=============================================================
To: Members of the Lincoln City Council, Mayor Chris Beutler
From: Beatty Brasch, Vice Chair - StarTran Advisory Board
Date: July 18, 2008
Subj: Recommendations, Mayor’s Proposed F.Y. 2008-09 Budget
cc: Greg McLean - PW/U, Larry Worth - StarTran
Per 2.38 of the Lincoln Municipal Code (LMC) the StarTran Advisory Board has reviewed the StarTran service revisions contained in the Mayor’s F.Y. 2008-09 proposed budget, conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed service revisions, and is forwarding recommendations in that regard. The proposed service revisions addressed are:
*Eliminate weekday non-peak (10:00 a.m. - 2:00 pm.) service on most routes. (Retain downtown shuttle, inter-campus shuttle, one north/south and one east/
west route.)
*Eliminate Holiday Light Tours
*Expand Low Income Program eligibility to 200% poverty level.
The Public Hearing was conducted at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 17, 2008, in the City Council Chambers. Approximately 85 people attended the hearing, with 45 testifying and an additional 21 represented by spokespersons on the above proposed service revisions. No one was in support of and 62 were opposed to the midday weekday service reductions. No one testified in regard to elimination of the Holiday Light Tours, and nine testified in favor of the expansion of the Low Income Program eligibility.
Those who testified in opposition to the proposed elimination of weekday non-peak service described how elimination of such transit services would significantly impact their lives. Many have parttime jobs or jobs which are not the usual 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. schedule, so would be unable to travel to or from their workplace. Others described how they would be unable to travel to/from University classes which are scheduled throughout the day, and indicated that there are many University students currently on summer break who depend on StarTran to attend classes during midday. Others indicated how they would be negatively affected by being unable to travel to medical appointments, do basic shopping, and just recreational and other trips. Nearly all described how they depended on StarTran for all of their transportation needs, as they have no car, are unable to drive, and cannot depend on or afford the cost of the local taxi company.
Representatives of several organizations whose clients are transit-dependent also testified, indicating how their clients would be unable to travel to reach their services (midday meals, medical services, counseling, etc.). These representatives stated that their organizations depend on StarTran to afford transportation for their clients and have no alternative means of serving their clients.
The nine who spoke in favor of expanding the eligibility for the Low-Income “Ride for Five” Program described the success of the program in meeting the transportation needs of the many low-income persons in our community, and felt that there are many others who could be helped by such an expansion of program eligibility.
Please note 35 e-mails and letters were received by StarTran with several addressing more than one issue. Thirteen were in support of the Ride for Five expansion and 24 opposed the midday service cuts.
Following the public hearing, the StarTran Advisory Board met to address the above three proposed service revisions, in consideration of the public testimony, and to develop recommendations. The following are those recommendations:
*Opposed the proposed midday service elimination, and suggested a property tax increase of 1cent to restore midday service and afford funding for transit improvements/expansion.
*Approve expansion of the Low Income “Ride for Five” Program to 200% of poverty level.
*Acknowledged the Federal regulations precluding the operation of the Holiday Light Tours.
======================================================================================
Year Population Safety * per 1,000 ** Other *** per 1,000 Total **** per 1,000 ***** tax rate
Area
90-91 191,971 589 3.1 1435 7.5 2024 10.5 63.6 0.4718
91-92 195,270 592 3.0 1440 7.4 2.032 10.4 63.9 0.4883
92-93 199,021 600 3.0 1383 6.9 1983 10.0 64.7 0.5088
93-94 202,500 605 3.0 1395 6.9 2001 9.9 65.2 0.5199
94-95 204,493 629 3.1 1420 6.9 2049 10.0 66.1 0.4062
95-96 207,154 638 3.1 1440 6.9 2078 10.0 66.5 0.3996
96-97 209,192 665 3.1 1420 6.8 2075 9.9 69.1 0.3837
97-98 211,522 679 3.2 1413 6.7 2092 9.9 69.8 0.3581
98-99 213,836 672 3.1 1400 6.5 2072 9.7 71.8 0.3239
99-00 218,497 677 3.1 1406 6.4 2083 9.5 75.4 0.3239
00-01 225,581 701 3.1 1429 6.3 2130 9.4 76.8 0.3239
01-02 226,861 721 3.2 1477 6.5 2198 9.7 79.3 0.3145
02-03 228,450 720 3.2 1463 6.4 2182 9.6 79.8 0.3145
03-04 232,362 742 3.2 1483 6.4 2225 9.6 81.4 0.2903
04-05 235,565 741 3.2 1495 6.3 2242 9.5 82 0.2950
05-06 236,146 741 3.1 1504 6.4 2245 9.5 83 0.3009
06-07 239,213 740 3.1 1487 6.2 2227 9.3 86 0.2879
07-08 241,167 734 3.0 1432 5.9 2166 9.0 88.8 0.2879
08-09 245,000 740 3.0 1361 5.6 2101 8.6 88.7 ??
% 27.6 25.6 -3.2 -5.2 -25.3 3.8 -18.1 39.5 -39
The table lists :
Population
*Safety (total of fire, rescue, police and 911 staff)
** Per 1,000 (safety personnel per thousand city residents)
*** Other (total of all other city departments, excluding LES)
Per 1,000 (other personnel per thousand residents)
**** Total (total city personnel)
***** Per 1,000 (that total per thousand),
Area (city's size in square miles)
Tax Rate (city real estate tax rate).
The bottom line shows the percentage change in the various measurements.
Lincoln has grown substantially in population and land area since 1990. Safety personnel have nearly kept pace with population. Other government functions have been gradually streamlined to meet voter desire to keep property taxes down.
The abrupt personnel cuts of the last three years -- 18, 61, 65 -- illustrate not improved efficiency but emergency responses to a fundamental revenue shortfall.
Basic city services like streets, buses, sidewalks, parks and trails, pools, libraries, aging, youth, public health, etc., are now being reduced below prudent maintenance levels.
Neither elected officials nor citizens can believe that the city's financial crisis has been solved.
Conclusion: Lincoln needs a new revenue source, perhaps a city income tax.