Posts about Mary Cheh

To: Members of the Council of the District of Columbia
From: Councilmember Mary M. Cheh
Date: May 14, 2012
Subject: The District's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget

Tomorrow, we will take our first vote on the Fiscal Year 2013 budget. To encourage transparency and open debate, this memorandum provides a summary of all budget recommendations from my office. The recommendations are divided into Committee and Non-Committee proposals.

Committee Recommendations

1. Prohibit the sale of gasoline in the District beginning January 1, 2014. In the interim, the District shall raise its excise tax on gasoline from $0.235 to $8.75, which we are told represents roughly 50% of the jobbers' current markup on motor fuel in the District. Revenues from the tax shall be converted into capital dollars for the construction of a hydrogen automobile factory. Beginning January 1, 2014, hydrogen may only be purchased from stations operated by small and disadvantaged businesses grossing less than $777.9 million annually (or whatever Capitol Petroleum's gross revenue may be at that time).

2. Convert $12,000,000 from the District Department of the Environment's operating budget into capital dollars to fund the construction of a new shelter. The new shelter, known as the "Cheh Rat Sanctuary," will be open to families of rodents who have been forcibly relocated. At the shelter, they will be able to live together in peace and without fear of being exterminated. Based upon discussions at the "Rat Summit of 2012," the Virginia Attorney General offered to house the sanctuary on his Fairfax estate. We are awaiting further communications with the Virginia Attorney General's office and are preparing an MOU to facilitate the interstate transfer of funds.

3. Related to number 2 above, create a special purpose fund for fees collected as part of a new written examination to be administered to states' Attorneys General of other jurisdictions. The examination will measure knowledge of constitutional law and basic reading skills, and a passing score will be required for each Attorney General who wishes to opine on District matters. Sample questions may include: "Which of the following sentences does not include the word 'rat'?" Proceeds from the fund shall be used to establish public grief counseling units for rats and other commensal rodents who have lost family through pest control. The fund shall be managed by the District Department of the Environment.

4. Transfer $250,000 from the Department of Motor Vehicles' Adjudication Services to a newly created Global Positioning System (GPS) person-tracking program. Through the program, select individuals will be asked to wear GPS-powered, "District-loyalty" ankle bracelets used to implement the following requirements:

Council Members shall be barred from outside vacationing. Elected officials—particularly those with second jobs—should not waste valuable time and potential tax dollars vacationing in other jurisdictions. Moreover, a member may become beholden to a Hampton Inn in Maryland, whose free breakfast policy creates an obvious conflict of interest and may run afoul of the new ethics rules if the member chooses to have a second free waffle. The change should also boost tourism as vacationing members can highlight many of the District's top destinations and activities. Sample activities include touring archeological sites in Spring Valley, taking advantage of natural exfoliation in the Anacostia River, enjoying a mud bath at Blue Plains, or watching a filibuster in the U.S. Senate or at an ANC meeting.

Establish a residency requirement for the Washington Post's editorial board. This requirement is expected to generate tax revenues from new residents and additional tax revenues from whichever entity is now hired to perform public relations for former Mayor Adrian Fenty.

5. Transfer $25,000 in capital dollars to the District Department of Motor Vehicles. The funds will be used to establish a new, state-of-the-art, customer queue management system. All residents seeking DMV services will participate in mandatory BINGO games. When a patron achieves BINGO, s/he will become next in line for DMV services. The measure is expected to improve customer enjoyment at DMV and to decrease the average wait time by three hours and seventeen minutes.

Non-Committee Recommendations

1. Transfer 95% of all Council Committee budgets and FTEs to the Committee of the Whole. To maximize efficiencies and streamline the government, the following additional functions will now fall under the Committee of the Whole: Public Services, Consumer Affairs, Government Operations, the Environment, Public Works, Transportation, Planning, Economic Development, Housing, Workforce Development, Tax and Revenue, Health, Human Services, the Judiciary, Small Business, and Aging. The following areas shall be divided up among the other Council Committees at future date to be determined: the Office of Cable Television, the Office of Risk Management, the Boxing Commission, the Bicycle Advisory Council, and the Department of Parks and Recreation. In order to allow members to spend more time focusing on their revised committee responsibilities, the Committee of the Whole will now include only the following members: the Council Chairman.

3. Add a new requirement for the Council as part of the Budget Support Act. Recently, the Council passed legislation requiring all students to apply to at least one college in order "to raise expectations for students, and create a culture of academic excellence and success in District schools." Add a new BSA provision requiring all Council Members to apply to at least one job in order to raise expectations for members, and create a culture of professional excellence and success in District government. The measure is expected to be budget neutral.

4. Beginning October 1, 2012, Council Members who use profane language shall be required to deposit five cents into a special purpose non-lapsing fund, designated as the Saying Words Egregious to Aural Recipients by Juvenile Actors Reacting, or SWEAR JAR. Funds shall be distributed to DCPS schools to offset the $17 million shortfall for the IMPACT teacher evaluation system caused by the loss of private grant funds. After the first $17 million is provided to DCPS schools, remaining funds shall used to purchase ear muffs for use at Council breakfasts.

5. Transfer $3,000 from the Department of General Services maintenance fund to be used for marketing. As the District government continues to "right size," vacant District-owned property represents untapped income. Therefore, I am recommend allocating $3,000 to advertise available office space in the Wilson Building. With minimal outreach, we have already successfully leased a vacant suite of offices on the first floor of the building to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Washington Field Office. With just a bit more outreach, I believe we could easily fill other vacant spaces as well. For example, I understand that the Federal Bureau of Prisons is exploring some additional space in the basement and expects to conclude negotiations soon.

6. Establish the Resident Relocation Fund, a new special purpose fund. Some residents simply are not well suited to live in a major city. They fear sidewalks, bicycles, traffic, noise, parking, and university dormitories. To address their growing list of concerns, we shall establish the Resident Relocation Fund, which will subsidize the costs of these folks moving outside of the District and include a complimentary municipal bond, untaxed, from the jurisdiction of the ex-resident's choice.

7. Add a further amendment to the BSA. With the passage of B19-0474, the Lottery Amendment Repeal Amendment Act of 2012, the District gave up millions of dollars in potential revenue. Much of our concern related to the iGaming contract stemmed from the lack of transparency in the bidding process. To remedy that problem, add a BSA provision that would once again put an internet-based gaming system out for contract, but with the added mandate that the payment for that contract be made only with money orders. In doing so, the District will enhance its revenue stream while ensuring a clear and easily traceable contract process.

Should you have any questions about the below measures, please take a hard look in the mirror. The ideas here are brilliant and need no further explication. Please do not contact my staff or me with your questions or concerns.

Performance parking money goes to neighborhoods and bus priority

Mayor Gray had proposed ending the practice, which the original performance parking pilot zones established, of putting some parking money toward projects in the local neighborhood. The committee restored that in part. Now, if a performance parking zone raises extra mone over its "baseline" revenue from before performance parking, half of that money can go toward transportation projects in that neighborhood.

In other words, if DDOT extends meter hours or raises rates, half of the extra revenue from that change can go to local projects. Before, just setting up a performance parking zone meant that 75% of the total revenue, including the preexisting revenue, went to the neighborhood (though, in some cases, some of that revenue had to pay for new meters). The neighborhoods with performance parking got to spend some money right off the bat, even if DDOT never tweaked meter rates and hours. And in some of the zones, DDOT took a painfully long time to do so.

What about the other half of the money? The committee's budget probably dedicates that to bus priority improvements.

While DDOT needs to do its utmost to make the H Street streetcar a success and lay the groundwork for future lines, streetcars won't go everywhere and won't magically solve all of DC's transportation problems. The District spends $190 million per year to subsidize on bus service, yet many buses spend a lot of time in traffic and many people don't want to ride a bus that's not the Circulator.

Reducing bus delay could save a lot of money and draw more riders to the bus system. The many Metrobus line studies came up with countless recommendations for how to make service better: moving a stop across the street, changing a turn signal to help buses through a rough spot, improving enforcement to avoid illegal loading, adding a bus lane, and so on.

Funds depend on DDOT implementing performance parking

A dedicated pot of money will push DDOT to move ahead with these important changes. These projects won't have to compete with others for money. That assumes there is money, though. Before any money goes to bus improvements, WMATA gets about $30 million for existing bus operations. The CFO's office estimates that DC's meters today will almost cover that. DDOT is upgrading old meters to newer ones with better technology that break less and therefore are less likely to lose revenue; the WMATA payment also assumes that those upgrades continue.

If DDOT goes ahead with the upgrades and then starts managing its curbside space more efficiently, the meter revenue will surpass the $30 million mark. Local neighborhoods and bus priority projects will get funded. If the meter upgrades get delayed and DDOT doesn't tweak rates and hours, it could fall short, and both neighborhoods and bus priority could end up with nothing for the year.

An amendment from Tommy Wells at the markup specifically asks DDOT to make bus priority improvements on downtown segments of H and I streets a top priority for the money. WMATA has said that this congested area forms a major bottleneck for bus routes from all parts of the District; bus lanes here could do the most to reduce delays. A consultant is currently studying traffic operations along H and I, and their report will help DDOT design the lanes to best move bus traffic and minimize the amount of extra delay for drivers.

To help get performance parking moving downtown, the legislation specifically instructs DDOT to work on performance parking with DC Surface Transit, the business-led group that was been instrumental in bringing in the Circulator and promoting the streetcar. DCST and downtown businesses have been eager for performance parking.

Other changes in the budget

The budget also takes steps to restore the pedestrian and bicycle enhancement fund, which pays for a number of smaller pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects. In addition, $100,000 comes from the Committee on Libraries, Parks, Recreation and Planning to fund a new volunteer Trail Ranger program, similar to one in Denver. The money pays for a grant to an organization like WABA to manage that program.

The committee asked DDOT to use federal funds to redo the streetscape on Florida Avenue between 2nd and 10th Streets NE. Florida Avenue is wider here than elsewhere, but the sidewalk is far too narrow even though it adjoins the growing NoMa district and Gallaudet students often walk along the road. DDOT has already acknowledged in an earlier study that the sidewalk needs to be better here.

Finally, the budget takes a little bit out of transportation to fund a few of Cheh's other priorities, including a program encouraging food stamp recipients to buy food at farmers' markets ($50,000), help fund the Office of Campaign Finance ($100,000), and a tax break for a homeless services organization ($10,800).

A good budget gets better

Mayor Gray's original DDOT budget was an excellent proposal. It funded the streetcar, preserved Metro service, and took the very significant step of pushing for performance parking citywide. Gray made it clear that he stands behind initiatives that enhance walking, bicycling, and transit.

The way the budget used parking meter revenue was the biggest issue council staff had with the budget. The Mayor's proposal sent all parking meter revenue straight to WMATA. It's great to fund transit, but the problem with this approach is that DC doesn't just give more or less to WMATA as money is available; its commitment gets set in the WMATA budget.

Far more money comes from the general fund for WMATA, and a small amount from meters. As meter revenue increased, it would just have replaced general fund support. That would have only fueled the criticism that performance parking is just a way to raise money.

Perfromance parking is best when local neighborhoods also get a benefit from meter changes, and when money goes toward improving the other ways shoppers, diners, office workers and others can travel to an area besides driving and parking. The commitee's budget restores that nexus. Money DDOT raises from changing parking will directly help fund programs that make neighborhoods either easier to get to or more attractive.

This budget recommendation will next go to the entire council as part of the overall budget debate. The council should preserve what the committee has done.

The commission plans to fund these initiatives with a surcharge of 50¢ per trip. Ron Linton, chairman of the commission, sees the new surcharge as a critical element of the proposed bill. "The creation of the Consumer Service Fund insures that funds obtained through a passenger-paid surcharge will be used to improve the quality of services for passengers," said Linton.

Other items in the bill would allow the taxicab commission to upgrade the fleet, carry out more inspections, provide incentives for drivers to purchase fuel-efficient cabs, and expand taxi service to all areas of the city. The commission also plans to add more robust tracking systems to monitor overall taxicab performance.

Survey showed public support for reforms

Cheh's office conducted an online survey about the provisions of the bill and taxi service in general. Responses by more than 4,000 metro area taxi riders showed that only 22% of respondents thought that the quality of taxi service in the District was good or excellent. 69% said it is worse than other major cities. The proposed taxi reform legislation and the requirement to accept credit cards found overwhelming support with 94% and 93% positive responses respectively.

In the survey, a majority of respondents supported higher taxi fares only if the quality of service improved. Belinda Li, a Chicago-based management consultant, testified at the hearing on Cheh's bill that the additional costs to hail a cab would put a burden on riders and potentially drive people away from riding taxicabs.

The hospitality industry supports the reforms as well. According to industry data, the District hosts over 17 million visitors a year, generating roughly $6 billion in expenditures in the city. An improved taxi service would allow visitors to get to their hotels and other destinations safely and efficiently.

"This is something we have been working on for quite some time," said Solomon Keene, President of the DC Hotel Association. "DC is a world class city so we want to make sure that we provide a world class taxi service."

Drivers less enthusiastic

Though the public supports the reforms, taxi companies have expressed opposition to the bill, citing cost concerns. The industry generally opposed the change from a zoning system four years ago to a meter system, and sees this new proposal as further undermining their ability to make a living.

At a public hearing earlier this year, drivers testified that they felt the effects of the bill on the industry were not fully taken into account before the bill was drafted. They questioned how the fund will be managed and whether drivers will be compensated adequately for expenses incurred to retrofit their vehicles. It is also unclear how soon the reforms can be implemented, since funding from the surcharge won't be available right away.

Other proposals may also affect taxi service in the District. In addition to Cheh's bill, Council chairman Kwame Brown introduced a bill to require that 10% of all cabs be wheelchair-accessible within 4 years.

Long-term questions remain

Beyond the short-term issues of fare increases and who bears the costs of implementing the reforms, there are unaddressed long-term concerns about the management of the industry. When Tommy Wells chaired the council committee with oversight over taxis, he expressed interest in making more major structural changes, possibly abolishing the taxicab commission and moving responsibility into DDOT and/or DCRA. However, Cheh has not pursued this approach.

In addition, the Council also considered and dropped the concept of a medallion system. Taxicab systems in major cities like New York and Chicago restrict the number of licenses issued and allow for licenses to be transferred between owners. In an open system like the District's it is relatively easy to operate a taxicab. As a result, independent operators saturate the market, making it easier for people on the street to get cabs, but driving down earnings for each driver.

In testimony at the public hearing, Belinda Li said that the District has one of the highest taxicab per-capita ratios in the country (12 per 1,000 residents), compared to Chicago (2.6 per 1,000 residents) and New York (1.6 per 1,000 residents). "The proposed bill," Li said, "does not restrict new cab drivers and does nothing to address the current oversupply issue." Not all residents may agree with Li about whether there is an "oversupply" today.

By choosing to put off addressing these fundamental challenges, the council will likely be forced to revisit taxi reform in the not-too-distant future. Until then, the reforms in the current bill will modernize the taxi fleet and make for a more pleasant cab ride in the nation's capital. Riders will be paying more, but should find that fewer surcharges make the final price less confusing as well.

MetroAccess is saddled with a poor customer service record. At a town hall meeting this past October, MetroAccess customers complained about poor treatment by drivers and call dispatchers, poor routing, long waits for pick up and drop off, and vehicle breakdowns. On a couple of occasions, clients of Iona Senior Services' Alzheimer's Day Program were dropped off at the wrong location, and it took hours to locate them. WMATA can do better than this, and taxis could help.

MetroAccess head Christian Kent has crafted a plan to fix the quality of MetroAccess service. Instead of having one vendor bid on the whole package of services, as in the previous contract, the RFP lets vendors bid separately to run the call center, the fleet services, and quality assurance.

Most jurisdictions of similar size do the same. Experts I spoke to feel that this is the best approach, especially having a different vendor handle quality assurance from the one(s) actually running the service.

But one piece of the plan does not make sense: decreasing taxi use from 20%, as specified in the old contract, to only 5%.

Research (cited at bottom) is clear that taxi paratransit services can be less costly than standard ADA paratransit:

• In 2005, Arlington County's taxi paratransit cost $20.50 per trip, versus $35 for WMATA.
  
• San Francisco's taxi paratransit costs $15-$18, versus $40 for Muni paratransit.
  
• Houston's ADA taxi service per hour is $32.10, versus $42.65 for paratransit van service.
  
• 50% of jurisdictions surveyed reported taxis saved money for transit agencies.

Beyond cost savings, there are other advantages. The taxi system has more flexibility. Taxis are there when you need them, can handle a trip without needing to know the day ahead of time, often come quickly, and force riders to wait less. They provide a safety net for peak service times, and fill in gaps in coverage. And customers like the direct, exclusive ride.

There are also challenges with using taxis. Some try to defraud the transit service. It's hard to monitor it, and drivers don't have as much training as the van services. Christian Kent cites these as reasons to decrease the amount of taxi use in the system.

Nevertheless, Arlington paratransit manager Steve Yaffe makes a strong case for taxi use. His system uses taxis to provide 50% of its paratransit service. He has demonstrated that the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages.

Yaffe said,

I recognize the difficulty in finding taxi vendors with sufficient internal controls and oversight over training, maintenance and accounting. Another difficulty with using taxis for this type of service is the dearth of jurisdictional reciprocity privileges for taxis being used to transport people with disabilities. However, new business models are being developed and have been implemented elsewhere to get around these obstacles and provide the necessary level of accountability and service oversight. The Metro Access RFP should not preclude the flexibility to increase future levels of taxi participation.

Instead of defining a percentage of taxi use for the system, WMATA should include specific quality standards for taxis. This will give all the jurisdictions the flexibility to improve quality, so that taxis can provide services for Metro Access users. This could lead to lower costs and better quality. 22 senior service providers in the District signed off on this recommendation. We hope Christian Kent listens.

Research citations:
Arndt, J. & Cherrington, L. (2007). The Role of Private-For-Hire Vehicles In Transit In Texas. Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.
Burkhardt, J. (2010). Potential Cost Savings from taxi paratransit programs. Institute of Transport Studies (Monash). Social Research in Transport Clearinghouse.
Burkhardt, J., Doherty, J., Rubino, J., Westat, & Yum, J. (2008). A Survey On The Use of Taxis in Paratransit Programs. Easter Seals Project Action. Retrieved from www.projectaction.org
Chapman, Koffman, Pfeiffer, & Weiner (2010). Funding the Public Transportation Needs of an Aging Population. American Public Transportation Association.

Image from DDOT.

A few months ago, DDOT announced plans to set up a new system similar to Arlington's. People with disabilities would henceforth have to pay at meters, like anyone else. They could still park at any meter, plus DDOT would set aside some "red top" meters exclusively for people with disabled placards and with longer time limits.

The vote today postpones any change at least until late June. Unfortunately, as Councilmember Jim Graham noted, the red top meters still have red tops, and people will be confused about whether they are allowed to park there. (Anyone can, for now, as if they were regular meters).

A better approach would have been to let DDOT go ahead with a revised plan it announced this morning. Unfortunately, that announcement came too late for councilmembers to really understand what was going on. DDOT said in their press release that they'd like to keep ticketing drivers without placards who park at red top meters, but would let drivers with disability placards keep parking for free until May 1.

Unfortunately, the Council acted very quickly. Bowser just announced her plan to introduce this "emergency" legislation on Friday. It's ironic that she responded to people complaining about not getting enough notice by taking action with even less notice.

Meanwhile, Mary Cheh has promised to hold a roundtable, scheduled for March 29, to discuss the policy. She said today that DDOT's communication around the issue has been "disastrous." Was it? I saw a number of announcements, press releases, tweets and more. Did DDOT really fail to communicate or were people just not paying attention?

Communication is important, but it's also an axiom of government that no matter what an agency does to communicate, some people claim that they didn't ever hear about the change.

Or are people who were parking for free (and maybe abusing the system) just upset that they have to pay now? Several councilmembers' statements during today's debate revealed that they really just don't think people with disabilities should pay for parking. Should they?

Marion Barry noted that people with disabilities have plenty of trouble in life as it is. Bowser pointed out that they get reduced fare on Metro. On the other hand, many people with disabilities also can use our transit system. Charging for parking allocates the spaces for everyone to use, and encourages people who have alternatives to use them.

What should DC's disabled parking policy be?

In some cases, new poles and old poles were attached to each other with odd collections of metal cables and brackets. Residents wondered whether there was any rhyme or reason to the seemingly random metal supports. W Street NW even had the distinction of a triple pole cluttering a tree box.

According to meeting minutes, ANC3B first attempted to hold Pepco accountable to a specific removal timeline at a November 2004 meeting.

Commissioner [Christopher] Lively reported that Pepco has been in the area and has almost completed removed [sic] their lines off the old poles on to the new poles. Verizon, Comcast, and Starpower, however, have not removed their lines so the poles still cannot be removed. Commissioner Lively will write a letter on behalf of ANC 3B to OCTT [Office of Cable Television and Telecommunications] to bring the issue to their attention.

In June 2007, ANC3B invited Pepco to explain its plan to remove the double poles.

Pepco Regional Vice President, Vincent Orange, and Linda Jo Smith, Public Relations, reported on the status of the double utility poles that has been a problem throughout Glover Park for the past five years. Pepco replaced their poles but could not take all of them down because other service companies (Comsat, Verizon, etc.) and the district had their products on the original poles. Pepco is making a concerted effort to work with these other companies and get rid of the original poles. Ms. Smith committed to returning in September with a status report.

Likewise, DDOT's Customer Service Officer assured me, "You will be happy to know that we are working with Pepco and other agencies to resolve the double pole issue. You're right, it isn't happening overnight, but we're getting there."

A few back and forth tweets with the @PepcoConnect Twitter account in June 2011 didn't help either, even after I offered to provide an inventory of locations.

Finally the long drawn out issue turned around in October 2011, when I asked my ANC3B single member district commissioner Brian Cohen to intervene. Cohen worked with Tom Smith, Ward 3 Liaison, Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Engagement, who immediately contacted Pepco's Public Affairs Public Affairs Manager for the DC Region, Chris Taylor. Smith also pulled DDOT and the city's cable office back into the issue.

Taylor provided a 521-page document called NJUNS covering the entire Pepco service area. His email walk-through of the pole removal process may be very useful to other neighborhoods trying to resolve this same issue.

To tell you more about the list, NJUNS stands for National Joint Use Notification System. Several states nation wide use this system. The basis of the system is that all utilities in a specific geographic region voluntarily participate in a program to help track progress in removing double poles. As was indicated earlier, equipment must be removed in sequential order from top to bottom. Pepco normally initiates the process when we first remove wires and equipment. Generally, the order is as follows:

1. Pepco
2. DDOT
3. RCN
4. Verizon
5. Pepco inspects to ensure pole is completely stripped
6. Contractor pulls the pole

The NJUNS sends an automated email each time a location is updated. If you look on the report, each page has various steps. At each step, NJUNS automatically sends an email to each utility notifying them of any action that is taken and needed next steps.

Photo by MWander on Flickr.

Behind the scenes, Pepco lit a fire under the other utilities. Only 2 months after identifying all the pole locations, temporary no parking signs went up and convoys of utility trucks scattered around Glover Park to begin removing the redundant poles.

Over half of the excess poles have been removed already, though ironically 3 new double poles were recently installed.

10 years later, a final resolution is in sight. It took a long time, but Glover Park's double poles are nearly gone. There is hope for other neighborhoods willing to put in the work to identify pole locations and repeatedly follow up with Pepco.

Serious flaws create serious scandals

Some of the biggest flaws in DC campaign finance involve corporate contributions. Corporate entities are allowed to directly give money to candidates in DC, unlike under federal campaign finance law. Worse, many corporate entities have multiple subsidiaries, such as developers who create a separate LLC for each project, and are allowed to donate up to the maximum from each of them separately.

This is very common in DC campaigns. The fact that so many incumbents garner much of their campaign cash this way may be why not a single other councilmember voted for Wells' amendments to ban the practice.

That's not the only problem with campaign finance, though perhaps the biggest legal loophole. There are also ongoing federal investigations into the campaigns of Mayor Vincent Gray and Council Chairman Kwame Brown. Prosecutors are reportedly looking into whether the Gray campaign accepted numerous money orders that weren't really from separate individuals.

The District was reminded of those investigations in dramatic fashion this weekend when the FBI raided the offices of Jeffrey Thompson, who owns Chartered Health Plans, the District's largest contractor. He is also one of the most significant donors to district politicians.

Thompson and related entities have given more than $700,000 to various campaigns over the years, including massive sums to Gray, former mayor Adrian Fenty, and at-large councilmember Vincent Orange. The raids also targeted a public relations consultant to the Gray campaign.

Proposals seek to mend the system

Several reformists have emerged with concrete proposals to make campaign finance in the district more transparent and effective.

When Tommy Wells introduced his doomed campaign finance amendments to last year's ethics bill it seemed like his might be the lone voice for reform on the council. But today he joined Mary Cheh as the only cosponsor on her "Campaign Finance Reform Amendment Act of 2012."

According to a statement by Cheh's office, the bill would "prohibit pay-to-play, require disclosure of external fundraising activities, and... ban corporate contributions."

Meanwhile, the DC Committee to Restore Public Trust, led by activist and former council candidate Bryan Weaver and Ward 7 ANC commissioner Sylvia Brown, is pushing a ballot initiative that would ban direct corporate contributions to DC campaigns.

Organizers must collect over 22,000 signatures from registered DC voters to place the initiative on the November ballot. Volunteers plan to gather signatures at every polling place during the April 3 primary.

The initiative has garnered some high-profile backers. Councilmember Wells is providing organizational support and, while announcing her legislation, Councilmember Cheh said that she "wholeheartedly support the efforts of the District residents working on" the initiative. At-large candidates Peter Shapiro, Sekou Biddle, and David Grosso, as well as Ward 8 candidate Jacque Patterson, also have voiced support.

Several candidates running for DC Council in the April 3rd primary, May 5th special, and November 6th general elections are taking an additional step to show their commitment to campaign finance reform. Grosso, who is running for the independent at-large seat up for election in November and currently held by Councilmember Michael A. Brown, has proposed a "transparency challenge" to all council candidates.

The challenge asks candidates to proactively embrace campaign finance reform ideals by pledging to post information on their websites about the directors, managers, shareholders, and corporate structures of any companies that they receive donations from. Additionally, the challenge requires candidates to disclose the names of people who collect multiple donations for them as well as information on each individual donor.

So far, candidates Max Skolnik (Ward 4), Jacque Patterson (Ward 8), and Peter Shapiro (at-large) have pledged to join the challenge. Although, as of March 6, only Grosso has posted his information online. All participants are challenging sitting incumbents. So far, no incumbents have joined the challenge.

Incumbents fail to speak up or act

Unfortunately, aside from Mary Cheh and Tommy Wells, most members of the DC Council seemed unconcerned with campaign finance issues and unlikely to act on reform before the upcoming elections.

Muriel Bowser, primary author of last years ethics bill and chair of the council's Committee on Government Operations, stated that she intended to take action on campaign finance. However, she has since defended herself for accepting corporate donations and argued against banning corporate money outright, making it unlikely that she will support Cheh's bill.

It seems even more unlikely that a majority of councilmembers will act on any sort of campaign finance reform. Several have spoken out against reform. Notably, yesterday morning Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) joked about his dislike of Cheh's legislation.

The rest of the council should work with Cheh and Wells to craft a bill that will reform the campaign finance system while still allowing participation from all engaged parties. DC should ban corporate bundling and strengthen disclosure rules, to make it more apparent who is donating and ensure that corporations do not skirt contribution limits. Contractors and other corporations that do business with the city should face even further restricted in order to avoid obvious conflicts of interest.

DC's politicians have proven all too willing to take advantage of weak campaign finance regulations. But it seems as though the city is becoming sick of it. The DC council should step up, fight against this culture of corruption, and bring corporate influence over elections back from the stratosphere and down to the height of individual influence.

Crime against SYEP youth: The pay days for students participating in the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) are well-known around the community, which has led to youth being targeted for robbery outside of Metro stations like Deanwood and Minnesota Avenue.

In response to this problem, the students said they would like to see an increased police presence. They also noted that police have a tendency to clump together and talk to each other rather than fully patrol the stations, so the students suggested that police spread out to cover a larger area.

Subsidized fares: SYEP paychecks will be cut by $2 per hour this summer. Therefore, the students recommended having WMATA or the District subsidize transit fares for SYEP participants. At the very least, the presenters asked for subsidized fares during the first two weeks of the program while participants wait for their first paycheck.

Councilmembers Tommy Wells (ward 6) and Muriel Bowser (ward 4, the Council's representative on the WMATA Board) asked DDOT and WMATA about the cost of a subsidy and what its fiscal impact would be, noting that youth who go to summer school already get a similar transit subsidy.

Youth advisory council: After last year's summit, WMATA was interested in establishing a youth advisory council to discuss activity on buses. Unfortunately, there had not been follow-up from the local councilmember, Yvette Alexander, to move this forward. At this year's summit, WMATA reaffirmed their interest in a youth advisory council.

Aging in place: One resident noted that the very young and the very old have unique needs when it comes to transportation, and asked how WMATA can help residents age in place, and how it can better accommodate strollers on buses.

Deaf riders: Other participants said that Ward 7 has an increasing population of the hearing impaired and deaf, and that transit employees should be trained to both recognize deaf customers and help them use the system.

Pedestrian safety: Organizer Neha Bhatt discussed pedestrian safety concerns at Benning Road's intersections with Minnesota Avenue and East Capitol Street. She had organized a recent walking tour with Ward 3 councilmember Mary Cheh, chair of the committee overseeing transportation, to look at problem intersections.

Capital Bikeshare: WABA executive director Shane Farthing raised the idea of subsidizing bike sharing for residents east of the river, and suggested changing Capital Bikeshare rules to allow younger members. Currently, one must be at least 16 years old to use Capital Bikeshare.

There was also an open house where community members could find information from DDOT, WMATA, Capital Bikeshare, and WABA, as well as discuss ideas with representatives from these groups.

The summit's two-hour timeframe turned out to be somewhat too short, so presentations and discussion were rushed at the end. The organizers are hoping to reformat for next year to avoid this issue.

Overall, residents came away with a widespread belief that working to pick the low-hanging fruit is a smart way to move forward and begin to bring positive change to Ward 7.

There's no time to waste. As I argued in a previous post and my testimony, we must couple promises to build a streetcar with a promise from local neighborhoods to help support it. Once a neighborhood's planned streetcar line gets close enough to reality, there's no incentive for local commercial property owners to agree to a value capture system, or local residents to agree to selective extra density along the commercial strip.

Cheh has introduced a bill to create a task force to make recommendations for a permanent governance structure. In her opening statement, Cheh noted that:

The system is still without a long-term financing and governance plan. ... Continued development will require a dedicated operating outlay and significant capital investment. Though the District expects some federal financial support along the way, development of a clear plan is crucial to moving the project forward. Still, there has been only quite limited movement to resolve some of the larger outstanding issues.

The 2010 streetcar system plan noted that DDOT would immediately begin to convene a governance task force composed of private sector, public sector, industry and community leaders to propose a an appropriate governance structure for the streetcar. Now it is almost 2 years later and the task force has not been created, and we are still without a concrete plan.

DDOT solicited bids to buy 2 more, which would support the 10-minute headways. Portland-based United Streetcar and Czech company Inekon both bid. DDOT chose United, but Inekon appealed, saying that it received a higher overall score, which combined price and technical merit. United was better on price, but Inekon got a better technical score.

Also, Inekon said United fell below a minimum technical threshold set out in the procurement. DDOT decided to cancel the contract. Regardless of which vendor would have been best, this now means DC has to scramble to get more cars by the planned opening in July 2013.

Bellamy said DDOT is looking into "piggybacking" on another city's purchase, but that's more difficult and potentially expensive since other cities likely have slightly different requirements. And he couldn't give much reassurance that this was going to actually happen.

People of H Street have waited patiently for a long time for the streetcar. If it opens and succeeds, then the wait will have been worthwhile, and other neighborhoods will clamor for the streetcar. But if it fails, it will get an early reputation as a boondoggle that will be very difficult to shake. Wells said,

If they start with 3 [cars] the headways are ridiculous, and often 1 car needs to be worked on. It would just be a tourist ride. ... If you start it with only 2 or 3 cars, I'm not with you. ...

If you actually open the system at half capacity, I think that's the story, and we don't need that. ... We're the nation's capital. We're rolling out the first leg of a 37-mile system. This is really a big deal. ... It's got to be done right.

If we start with 3 cars ... It will be a symbol of failure for this administration that it does not need.

DDOT still has time to procure the cars, if no additional obstacles pop up. This delay might force them to postpone the opening by a few months to later in 2013, but the current July timeline is already aggressive. Maybe the schedule will slip anyway, and the streetcar procurement will provide a good cover.

Creating an authority can bring significant advantages. Local business groups, like the Downtown Business Improvement District, and advocacy groups like the Sierra Club have been leading the way in building support for the streetcar. Yet many advocates say DDOT hasn't engaged with them much at all in recent months.

DDOT has been secretive about progress and especially about setbacks. When the Federal Transit Administration told DDOT it couldn't put tracks on the 11th Street Bridge without stopping the project for expensive and time-consuming new studies, DDOT kept the news secret for months until we broke the story. And how long did DDOT know that running the tracks under the Hopscotch Bridge was a no-go?

Creating a financing and governance plan is complex, and Bellamy said DDOT has been working on the problem. But all discussions have happened behind the scenes, and insiders familiar with the matter I've spoken with say they don't have much confidence in the process so far. Plus, this isn't a decision that should happen in secret. Residents and advocates are stakeholders that need to be involved as well.

Some of the current problems may come from DDOT having no streetcar head. Scott Kubly left in July, and DDOT just hired Carl Jackson a month ago.

The divison's other staff, many of whom are very talented, have to juggle many other competing priorities, like the Circulator, Capital Bikeshare, and oversight of WMATA. The Circulator and Capital Bikeshare are huge successes, and there have been few complaints about the way DDOT has handled these projects.

Cheh said this is a reason to support creating an authority. Maybe the streetcar, unlike the Circulator and CaBi, is just too large and complex to be part of another agency. She noted, "DDOT does an enormous amount, and it dos it very well. It gets a lot done, and a lot correct. But it's humongous." A separate authority would have staff and budget dedicated solely to the streetcar.

But separate authorities can also bring problems. If a project requires multiple agencies to cooperate to achieve a goal, it's a lot more complex. Staff at the agencies might not get along, or if they do, their bosses might have competing priorities or desires. If they're not all under the Mayor, there's no one person who can order everyone to get moving or resolve disputes.

Understandably, staff with limited time end up focusing on projects they can achieve themselves, without needing a lot of buy-in from people outside the building. Likewise, if DDOT is running the streetcar, its director, the mayor, and councilmembers can make sure the project succeeds and get credit for success. If there's a separate authority, will those agencies focus their energy on other priorities which live entirely in-house?

Finally, our mayorally appointed boards don't always act in harmony with the admini­stration's priorities. For example, the Historic Preservation Review Board can single-handedly facilitate or derail many development projects, and the Zoning Commiss­ion actually sets DC's zoning policy in ways the council and mayor cannot. But even a very pro-development, anti-delay mayor like Adrian Fenty still appointed HPRB and Zoning Cmmission members more on personal relationships than on any policy alignment.

Who would be on this streetcar board? DDOT officials? Business leaders? Community members? What about people who aren't so enthusiastic about the streetcar? Will the board focus on getting the system done, or will it devolve into a forum for battles over the pace of change?

We have an authority for transit already—WMATA. It's not exactly a paragon of efficiency, and government officials in DC, Maryland, and Virginia grumble about handing over money year after year without as much power to fix problems as they have over local agencies. The streetcar authority wouldn't be an interstate compact, but could it develop some of the same problems?

We can certainly imagine an authority effectively shepherding this complex project to great success. Certainly DDOT's recent management of the project sets a low bar for an authority to surmount. But we can also envision the authority turning into another awkward structure that needs reform a few years down the road.

Can the council design the authority to capture the benefits of a separate structure but avoid many of the pitfalls? Portland seems to have done so, for example; an independent authority successfully manages its streetcars. The details of the plan will determine whether an authority in DC would lead to similar success, or not.

Cheh's bill properly proposes a public conversation about whether to create an authority, and how. It's good to explore whether an authority could better serve the goal of implementing and operating an efficient, sustainable, innovative streetcar system. If it can, DC should set one up. But it should not be a foregone conclusion.