Photo by nj_dodge.

Yesterday’s Metro budget approval came as a sigh of relief for many bus riders in the region. The Board decided to avoid many service cuts by tapping into Metro’s operating reserve account. Chris Zimmerman of Arlington was the only “no” vote for that plan.

Below is the the statement he provided to Greater Greater Washington. Mr. Zimmerman chastises the Board for its reliance on one-time fixes that close this year’s gap but “in effect, borrow against future budgets,” forcing Metro to face the same or even larger deficits in future years.

Zimmerman also criticizes the process that led to these decisions. The jurisdictions negotiated behind closed doors for months before presenting anything to the public, and eliminated almost all budget options before showing anything to the public. Mr. Zimmerman argued for presenting the public with more options, including a fare increase and a wider range of service cuts than necessary. That would allow the Board to choose how to bring the budget in balance after hearing feedback from riders.

Here is Zimmerman’s full statement:

Today the WMATA Board of Directors finalized action for the budget year which begins on July 1. While I am relieved that proposed bus service cuts will be substantially mitigated, I could not in good conscience support the action as it came before us this afternoon.

I do not believe that the resolution of Metro’s budget for fiscal year 2010 represents responsible budget-making, either in its substance, or in the process by which it was arrived at.

The budget as approved is not fiscally sustainable. In the end the budget gap was closed by, in effect, borrowing against future budgets. The problem has essentially been passed on to next year. Barring a significant change in the fiscal outlook and budgetary priorities of federal, state, and local governments, in about 8 months we can anticipate confronting a choice between very big fare increases, or even more drastic service cuts than were rejected this year.

I have always believed that process matters. The development of a public agency’s budget should be both fair to the participants and open to the public. This year it was neither.

As I have stated many times, I believe the public should always be given an opportunity to be heard on the proposed budget. For their input to be meaningful, the public must be given the chance to provide comment on the full range of options that could be considered to address the problem, and final decisions must be made after, not before, the public hearing.

Taking major options off the table before hearings are held is also not conducive to regional cooperation. Today jurisdictional representatives were forced to negotiate over a restricted set of alternatives, with limited opportunity to consult with those they represent, and no outside vetting.

In the end, the closure of the budget gap was accomplished not as proposed before hearing – or even days before the final action. The final measure was a substitute which, having received no public airing, was hastily thrown together at the last minute, in a closed meeting. In my view this undermines all the effort of recent years to strengthen public confidence in the agency by making a it more transparent and opening Metro’s decision-making to more outside input.

While it avoids any significant direct reduction of service, as I have noted numerous times over the last few months, there are likely to be consequences for system performance as a result of the “administrative” actions taken to close a budget gap that was initially $154 million. It would be a mistake to view this as a budget that saved all the service at no cost to the riding public.

Notwithstanding near-universal expressions of support for Metro from officials at every level, and every jurisdiction, the leadership of our region still has not come to grips with the fundamental fiscal problem of our perennially underfunded transit agency. I hope that we will do so, soon.

Metro’s decision yesterday is partly “borrowing against future budgets,” but had they not tapped the reserve, any surplus from this year would have gone back to the jurisdictions instead. At the moment, Metro predicts that surplus at $9 million, though it could change quickly. However, he’s correct that relying on one-time transfers is a dangerous way for Metro to bring its long-term budget in line with its funding sources.

Riders also deserve the opportunity to debate a full menu of choices. That didn’t happen this year, but is all the more important next year, when a fare increase is virtually certain.

Michael Perkins blogs about Metro operations and fares, performance parking, and any other government and economics information he finds on the Web. He lives with his wife and two children in Arlington, Virginia.