CATS sounds alarm on service promises

Advocate staff photo by PATRICK DENNIS --   A New Capital Area Transit System (CATS) bus (2011 model). Capital Area Transit System officials are now saying they might not be able to deliver on some promises made ahead of the April tax election because revenues are coming in short of what they had projected. Show caption
Advocate staff photo by PATRICK DENNIS -- A New Capital Area Transit System (CATS) bus (2011 model). Capital Area Transit System officials are now saying they might not be able to deliver on some promises made ahead of the April tax election because revenues are coming in short of what they had projected.

Capital Area Transit System officials are now saying they might not be able to deliver on some promises made ahead of the April tax election because revenues are coming in short of what they had projected.

Gary Owens, chief financial officer, disclosed during a court hearing Monday that CATS can only afford to add two of the eight limited stop routes promised during the campaign. He also said the frequency of some buses on routes would be less than what had been projected.

During their campaign to persuade voters to support a 10.6-mill property tax, CATS officials promised to deliver expanded and improved service. Among specific promises, were the addition of eight new express and limited stop lines, “serving the airport, universities, malls and other areas.”

Owens said six of the eight express routes are off the table indefinitely.

CATS also promised to decrease wait times from 75 minutes to 15 minutes at peak hours. Owens said in an interview Tuesday that peak hours and the most heavily used routes will still have 15-minute waits, but some lesser-used routes may see fewer service improvements.

Owens said CATS won’t be able to deliver on those promises is because the agency expects to receive about $6.6 million less in total budget revenue than initially projected.

CATS projected it would generate about $18 million with the passage of the tax in Baton Rouge, Baker and Zachary. Combined with its other revenue sources of state, local and federal funds, CATS built its promises around the expectation it would have a budget of $30 million.

But Owens said CATS expects to lose the city-parish’s annual contribution of $3 million per year, plus a $600,000 contribution from the parish transportation fund.

The remaining $3 million revenue loss is due to other factors, including the failure of the tax in Zachary, which translated into a loss of $1.1 million in anticipated tax revenue, Owens said. In addition, the tax was found after the election to be subject to homestead exemption, which shields the first $75,000 of assessed property value, and that also means less revenue for CATS than anticipated, he said.

William Daniel, chief administrative officer for Mayor-President Kip Holden, said the Mayor’s Office is still preparing its budget for 2013 and could not comment on specific budget allocations, including whether the proposed budget will include any subsidy for CATS.

However, CATS Board President Jared Loftus said CATS has not been invited to submit a budget proposal as it has in previous years when funding for it was included in the budget.

Several Metro Council members, who have the final say over the mayor’s budget, publicly stated ahead of the election that they would be against subsidizing CATS from the city-parish’s general funds budget if voters approved the tax.

Officials with Together Baton Rouge, a faith-based advocacy group that helped campaign in favor of the tax and has charged itself with holding CATS accountable for fulfilling its promises, say they are disappointed with the developments.

Edgar Cage, co-chairman of Together Baton Rouge’s transit team, said in a statement: “It’s understandable that the loss in revenue would result in some changes to the transit reform plan. But the wholesale elimination of nearly all express and limited stop routes? That’s not acceptable.”

He said Together Baton Rouge hoped to work with the CATS board and staff to “get into the weeds with the numbers they’re looking at.”

Loftus said the CATS board is also concerned but has only recently been briefed about the changes. He said the CATS board has not approved its budget or service changes for next year, but suggested that while the express service may be eliminated for a certain route, it could still be serviced with regular bus lines.

Loftus also said that the agency can only reasonably deliver on promises it can afford.

“It’s completely rational that when you tell people that something costs one thing, and then you don’t have that money you said you needed to do that, then you can’t provide those services,” he said.

Loftus said CATS has always received a city-parish stipend, and CATS officials have voiced concerns to the Mayor’s Office and the Metro Council that they need the money to fulfill their promises.

Other promises CATS made that officials are moving forward with include adding GPS tracking to the fleet, adding bus shelters, benches and signs at bus stops, expanding from 19 to 37 routes, and adding three new transfer centers and building a more efficient grid route system.

The city-parish’s contribution could prove to be even more important to CATS, if the agency loses a lawsuit filed by a businessman that seeks to invalidate the election results.

Milton Graugnard, a Cajun Industries executive, sued CATS more than three months after the election, calling it unconstitutional because residents outside the city limits will benefit from service, while only city residents will be taxed.

The case was heard in state court this week, and a judge is expected to issue a ruling by next week.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (48)


1) Comment by gumbo33 - 18/10/2012

Apathy anyone?

2) Comment by gumbo33 - 18/10/2012

Exactly why I didn't support this tax. Zero accountability. Promises, but no requirements to fulfill those promises. Who does business this way!!?? Secondly, not including the Mall of LA, Town Center or Perkins Rowe in the taxed areas. How convenient!!! Thirdly, too much waste and mis-management from the top down that is still entrenched and on full display.

3) Comment by rdj! - 18/10/2012

If CATS has any route planing intelligence... The two LONG express routes should be 1) Airport Parish Jail/Downtown/to LA Swift/Greyhound to connect an existing regional connection (North Express) AND 2) Downtown - Casinos/Gardere - Lauberge/Mall of LA - Perkins Row (South Express)... Commute/Weekends ONLY

4) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 18/10/2012

I agree with Phil and ScotB. CATS has poisoned the well for any consideration of a rail project. Didn't BRAC lead the "Blue Ribbon" commission that pushed this tax?

5) Comment by Duckyluve - 18/10/2012

CATS has lied, cheated and stole from the taxpayers

6) Comment by nimby? - 18/10/2012

anyone talking to CATS employees , drivers , service personnel would note their lack of confidence in their superiors ....

7) Comment by Costanza - 18/10/2012

Bait and switch, anyone?

8) Comment by Costanza - 18/10/2012



9) Comment by phil - 18/10/2012

I have already made comments here so I will just add one more for today - REMEMBER this CATS transit situation when the people who are pushing a New Orleans to Baton Rouge passenger rail system start talking about tax subsidies and passing new taxes for that. Don't you know when you are being played??

10) Comment by Chucky - 18/10/2012

@ScotB- you are so right, even with this tax they bemoan the need for more money, next they will be hiring a public relation Pearson to tell us why.

11) Comment by 8point6 - 18/10/2012

"CATS sounds alarm on service promises". http://theadvocate.com/home/4169047-125/cats-sounds-alarm-on- service Look at "our views" back in May: Our Views: Congratulations for new CATS http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/2657434-123/our-views- congratulations-for-new

12) Comment by ScotB - 17/10/2012

If you have been following this story, originally CATS was short in its budget $2 million. So, now, instead of an additional $18 million, they are only getting an additional $12 million ($6 million less than they had hoped if the tax passed). So their $2M problem was solved with $12M, they got new buses due to a federal grant, and they still can't run the city's bus service? I recall raises being handed out. I think some pink slips need to be handed out liberally to management.

13) Comment by NewsReader - 17/10/2012

BRmoderate, there was a huge ado in August over the subsidies in the NYC and some legal rulings over it. If you look on the website transportationnation dot org you'll find the full legal ruling in the mobility tax as it is called and all the dollar figures. It shocked people in NY when they realized how unfairly the subsidies were being distributed. The same discrepancy exists on the public transportation headed towards NJ too. The PATH trains have insane subsidies as well as NJ Transit. FWIW the NY subsidies amount to some $1.8B and cover 12 counties in the NYC vicinity. Subsidies up there were always unfair. In fact when I lived there it was cheaper for me to take a bus to Rockland County (it is one of the 12 counties under that subsidy) and then drive back into Northern NJ than take a shorter bus ride or train to my town.

14) Comment by lachairman - 17/10/2012

How many of the new routes are outside the city limits of Baker and BR? CATS is falling over itself to expand services to the new casino and the new Woman's hospital. Both of those enterprises are private for profit outside the city limits. Riders inside the city limits wait sometimes an hour and a half for a bus while CATS continues its outward expansion. The unchecked poorly planned continued expansion will end us back where all this began: running out of money before the end of the fiscal year. Don't forget the $5+ million grant for new buses Sen. Mary got CATS. How much shorter in fulfilling their promises would they be without that money?

15) Comment by phil - 17/10/2012

DMJ - private companies use private funds, and if they use those private funds inefficiently then I could care less unless I own stock in the company. Now if you are talking about private- public partnerships that hide where tax money goes to, then we are in agreement that THEY are totally inefficient and should not be allowed in most cases. Do we need public transportation in Baton Rouge? I think the answer is YES. However the CATS tax needs to be declared null an void and the entire bus system needs to be looked at again by people who do not have a dog in the fight relative to creating a new transit dynasty in BR with associated high salaries etc.

16) Comment by The_Host - 17/10/2012

Elderly Man- I assume you have some years behind you if you are truly Elderly. As such what part of the past oh say 30-40 years would have possibly made you think you should vote for this and it will be all wonderful? Based on what other government tax based program did you come to this conclusion? YOU were the biggest proponent of the tax, getting your 2 bits in on every last story leading up to the election. Lecturing us all on how it will be and why it should be voted in favor of and yet here you are complaining. Really did you actually think THIS TIME anything would be different and if so based on what? All you liberals seem to have this misconception that if we just had more tax money everything would be great. Yet you totally forget who is spending the money. The same exact people that got us in a mess to begin with. More money is not and never will be the answer to our problems unless it comes from less government and taxes and more money in OUR pockets and not theirs. I thought with age came wisdom but apparently not.

17) Comment by BRmoderate - 17/10/2012

Suffolk County, I could be wrong Newsreader but I thought that the bus system was not subsidized

18) Comment by Elderly Man - 17/10/2012

This disappointing and disgraceful news reveals simply that we are still not serious about public transit. I have to walk a mile each way and wait without shelter for75 minutes (or more) to use our system. This is no way to build a successful transit service. I wish I had voted against CATS. There are no excuses for this sorry state of affairs.

19) Comment by WhoCares - 17/10/2012

Together Baton Rouge hold them accountable...thats hilarious. Together Baton Rouge is some kind of weird group that exists because people are losers.

20) Comment by NewsReader - 17/10/2012

BRmoderate, which part of NY State did you live in, because if it was anywhere close to NYC/Queens/Long Island/Brooklyn/Staten Island/Westchester, there were most definitely subsidies in effect. In fact an article about 2 months ago indicated the NY MTA pegged those subsidies at $7.34 for passengers on the LIRR, $4.26 for passengers on Metro North and $1.11 for subway riders. And yes to repeat that's PER passenger and PER ride...

21) Comment by buzz - 17/10/2012

Let me get this straight. If CATS was able to provide the same level of service as proposed for the election after receiving $6,600,000 less than projected (due to subsequent events) everyone would be happy? I would kind of been shocked at that and wondered why they were asking for $6.6 million more than they needed. This city must have 40,000 transit experts with nothing to do but complain. Why not send your resume to CATS, get hired with all the excess money you think CATS has, and stop wasting your time in the comments section.

22) Comment by BRmoderate - 17/10/2012

Blow up CATS and rebuild. Growing up in NY, the local bus service would have commuter buses AND school bus service in their contract. The monies from school offset the losses from low traveled routes on the commuter service. Taxes were not used to fund the commuter service at all

23) Comment by tqmsystems - 17/10/2012

OOPS. It seems that some of the concerns before the tax election have come true. It will be interesting to see what Together Baton Rouge will do "to hold CATS Board accountable" like I was told before the election. Unless the judge throws the tax out as unconstitutional, we will be faced with paying the tax for all the years. One of the pre-election issues was providing transportation service to businesses that do not have to pay the tax because they are outside the city limits. Will CATS still propose to do this if they are cancelling many other promised services to the people paying?

24) Comment by foldgers - 17/10/2012

No surprise at all, but I would like to see EXACTLY how much they plan to get now and EXACTLY to what EVERY penny of that will go to, since it seems 80% of the stuff they promised will not happen.

25) Comment by The_Host - 17/10/2012

So true DMJ. Those Green Energy Companies we all invested in have shown us the way when it comes to tinkling away our tax dollars. DMJ is there anything you don't want to tax or think we shouldn't be taxing more on? I personally am just shocked to hear that the MATH didn't come out as planned YET AGAIN. Shocked I tell ya!

26) Comment by DMJ - 17/10/2012

Right....'cause we all know that private companies never take tax payer money and use it inefficiently. Please.

27) Comment by phil - 17/10/2012

Agreed that when interference from taxpayers is ended then so does the support of taxes, and then this can be run by a private company with private funding. By the way, exactly what is the tax money GOING to be used for now? More raises for the top people???

28) Comment by DMJ - 17/10/2012

Agreed.

29) Comment by nimby? - 17/10/2012

Baton Rouge DOES need an efficient public transportation system run by professionals knowledgeable in this field without interference from the local knowitalls who need to have their input ,

30) Comment by WhoCares - 17/10/2012

I thought express routes were the best part of the package. Truth is stranger than fiction.

31) Comment by WhoCares - 17/10/2012

CATS is a joke.

32) Comment by zealer99 - 17/10/2012

More taxes will fix anything

33) Comment by Being_Stupid - 17/10/2012

Don't worry folks. Woody Jenkins, Dan Claitor, and the Local Republican Party will come to the rescue to abolish this Mandatory Non-Municipal CATS Taxing District and will replace it with a Mandatory Non-Municipal "Crime Prevention" Taxing District instead.

34) Comment by Being_Stupid - 17/10/2012

Property Rights are a joke in East Baton Rouge Parish. A very bad joke.

35) Comment by Being_Stupid - 17/10/2012

We need another CATs Tax to raise more money. That's okay. The voters in the proposed district will outvote the property owners. Let's impose additional taxes. More taxes. The voters don't have to pay for it. Put it on the property owners. They can be outvoted every time.

36) Comment by foldgers - 17/10/2012

So, CATS over estimated and can't deliver, so they are putting blame on Zachary, on homestead exemption and the city council who promised would not vote for money to CATS in the city's budget if this passed. Typical. Blame everyone except yourself. Fire them ALL, start fresh from the beginning. Have someone go in there an look over ALL of the books, find waste(it is in there) and get rid of it. RAISE THE FARES ALSO! Heck, even just 50 cents!!! And from what I heard before the election, make sure EVERY rider pays the fare!!! Or just get rid of the entire system. Let a private company come in and do it.

37) Comment by DMJ - 17/10/2012

I voted for it. And I'm still in favor of it, but I'm very disappointed that they were so wrong about the projected revenue. I'm on board with some top-level management changes for sure. And all those foaming at the mouth, saying "I told you so" would do well to remember that public transportation is still vital for any metropolitan area and that no private company was even considering coming to BR to help. CATS needs changes. I think we'd all agree with that. But the election results speak for themselves: we need public transit and it needs to have a dedicated funding source tied to property values and not subject to politics.

38) Comment by pseudonymous - 17/10/2012

As a citizen who voted in favor of the tax, I'm very disappointed that projected revenue wasn't more conservatively estimated on the front end. The CFO should be fired.

39) Comment by phil - 17/10/2012

Where do I start? First, I believe that taxpayers were presented with a tax proposition that was sold as a municipal tax and then it turns out it is not according to an opinion from the Attorney General's office. I think this was a gigantic pig-in-a-poke election from the first day the tax was proposed. Then there is that subsidy by the city-parish for CATS that might be stopped. What you have there is an overall gift by taxpayers to the city- parish to the tune of about $3 million. If you think I feel sorry for CATS or for the city-parish government, think again. This entire issue should be resolved by the government by declaring the tax election null and void, and the tax vote be presented to voters again with ALL of the correct facts included. I personally believe there should not even be a a lawsuit needed to fix this problem. I think the government messed up and did not catch a tax proposition that was worded incorrectly, and therefore the government should fix this problem. A lot of government agencies were made aware of this.

40) Comment by TLS - 17/10/2012

Mr T, I couldn't agree with you more.

41) Comment by nimby? - 17/10/2012

and ? expect more "surprises" . another reason to dissolve the city- parish government .

42) Comment by Mr. T - 17/10/2012

If there were specific promises made, the Advocate never bothered to tell the public what they were. Even now, this article doesn't tell us exactly which "promised" routes will be fulfilled, and which ones are being cut. We obviosly need a new CATS Board, and a new newspaper to cover them.

43) Comment by jdk944 - 17/10/2012

THEIR poor planning continues!!!!! More "bait and switch". The reasons they give are BASIC principles to have been aware of when planning for this tax proposal.

44) Comment by Hello Baton Rouge - 17/10/2012

Does this really surprise anyone? This is why I have constantly argued that if you can't afford to ride the bus then don't try and burden people who don't ride it to pay your way. Where are all the advocates of this tax who were standing up for it? Show your face and tell me that raising the fare $1.00 across the board wasn't the way to go. Enjoy paying the extra tax this year to pad the pocket of CATS employees while doing NOTHING for the community.

45) Comment by tradewinns - 17/10/2012

i hope there will be an effort to recall this extra, not necessary tax very soon.

46) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 17/10/2012

What a shocker!!! I hope all you people that voted for this, are happy.

47) Comment by TLS - 17/10/2012

Why does this not surprise me?

48) Comment by Chucky - 17/10/2012

Oh well, it is a government agency after all.