Audit: Street changes needed

[FOTD]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20091104_11_A1_Cityst114615


The short answer: big changes needed in PWD. Start with replacing management.


Nice audit that refused to allow name calling but between the lines this audit says top down changes needed. Let's not say that for years Charlie Hardt has failed the test of time....next Mayors first big hire or will the next Mayor fall into the same hypnotic state of thinking the head of public diswerks is too big to fail?

[cannon_fodder]

Thanks for posting this FOTD, I heard it on the radio and neglected to follow up.

It seems to me the audit report was just short of asking "What the hell are you doing?"  It cited our funding mechanism as being flawed, our repair model outdated, our quality at a failing grade, and our leadership inept.  Pretty much across the board the auditors said our crappy streets are predictable and will be a chronic problem without SERIOUS changes. I think a precursory look at road conditions confirms that finding.

No:  streets are not the end all be all of a community.  But they are indicative of greater problems.  If a community can't manage or maintain it's streets - why will it be able to do better with anything else?  Not to mention better streets make an area . . . better.  As stupid or plain as it seems, nice streets make a community seem more livable, more up to date, and simply a better place to be.

I'll be interested to see what progress is made in correcting the specific issues pointed out by the audit.  Or if we just dropped $250,000 to have someone tell us we're inept and then we do nothing about it.

[Townsend]

  Or if we just dropped $250,000 to have someone tell us we're inept and then we do nothing about it.

Ding

[FOTD]

Kudos to Martinson. Next mayor should think about hiring Martinson to help out.

[Conan71]

The telling part of the audit was that only 40% or so of the work the "street maintenance" department actually did was repair or maintenance.  The rest was special projects like D-Fest or Tulsa Run or mowing the grass for the Parks Dept.

Like we didn't see this coming.  Maybe someone at City Hall is finally going to take notice of what people have been claiming for years about Public Works being in total disarray and the head of PW needing to be directly accountable to the taxpayers or it becoming an at-will position.  I realize that can lead to cronyism appointments, but that could not be much worse than ineptitude for life.  I'll give Hardt his props for flood mitigation, but there are so many other facets to PW that have not gone well.

FWIW, something else is brewing.  I was asked to do a 10 minute phone survey yesterday by a consulting company about discriminatory practices in city bidding.  I have no idea if it's fact gathering for a potential civil suit by an individual contractor or advocacy group like NAACP.  It was very, very odd and the chain of questioning was entirely centered around "discriminitory bid practices" and it was directed toward the COT, not a nation-wide generic survey of contractors who bid and contract with municipalities.

[FOTD]

The telling part of the audit was that only 40% or so of the work the "street maintenance" department actually did was repair or maintenance.  The rest was special projects like D-Fest or Tulsa Run or mowing the grass for the Parks Dept.

Like we didn't see this coming.  Maybe someone at City Hall is finally going to take notice of what people have been claiming for years about Public Works being in total disarray and the head of PW needing to be directly accountable to the taxpayers or it becoming an at-will position.  I realize that can lead to cronyism appointments, but that could not be much worse than ineptitude for life.  I'll give Hardt his props for flood mitigation, but there are so many other facets to PW that have not gone well.

FWIW, something else is brewing.  I was asked to do a 10 minute phone survey yesterday by a consulting company about discriminatory practices in city bidding.  I have no idea if it's fact gathering for a potential civil suit by an individual contractor or advocacy group like NAACP.  It was very, very odd and the chain of questioning was entirely centered around "discriminitory bid practices" and it was directed toward the COT, not a nation-wide generic survey of contractors who bid and contract with municipalities.

Yes. FOTD noticed the dis proportionality as well. D-Fest? Is there no fee assessed to these events to compensate the taxpayers?

It was Stan Williams and the Corps of Engineers that were the real heroes on flood detention.

The next mayor might want to eliminate a head of Public Works and hire a strong city manager to get our sh!t together for us.

[Conan71]

From the above linked article:

Hurding, a mechanical engineer, said the audit found that 51 percent of the work done by street maintenance crews went for special projects and special events such as D-fest, Tulsa Tough and Tulsa Run.

Also included in that figure was work for other departments, such as fixing parking lots for the Police Department and driveways for the Fire Department and mowing for the Park Department.

Hurding said the problem is that there is no "charge-back procedure" for that type of work, "so it is being done at the expense of the streets."

He also said 50 percent of the work done is reactive maintenance, mostly generated from calls to the Mayor's Action Center, which are treated as emergencies.

How has this gone on for so long?  I think the captain is asleep at the wheel.

[FOTD]

That captain played footsies while the city infrastructure sank.

"The bottles stand as empty, as they were filled before.
Time there was and plenty, but from that cup no more.
Though I could not caution all, I still might warn a few:
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools."
(Garcia/Hunter)

[buckeye]

Glad to see this getting airtime.

[TheArtist]

What I am curious about is this line in the TW article....

 "Cascio told the advisory board that instead of the city promising a 24-hour turn-around on pothole repairs generated from calls, customers should be told the work will be done in 72 hours or the near future when crews are scheduled in the area. "

Whats the difference between doing pothole repair in 24hrs or in 72hrs?  If your going to do them, why not keep up and do them the moment they are brought to your attention? Why intentionally delay? I thought that getting any potholes that appeared on my street done pronto was one of the few city services that worked right! Wow, you call, they get done, no fuss no muss, perfect service. Now the suggestion is to "institutionalize" an intentional delay and slow down of services? So now we are going to have our workers stand around with their thumbs up their butts for a few days, poke around and put you on a list, not tomorrow, but on a list a couple days from now? No, wait, they will still be working on potholes that day, but NOT the ones they got notified of the day before, ONLY the ones they got notified of, a couple days before,,, or perhaps even earlier?? We all know how this game will play out, they will get done,,, oh, whenever, and there will likely be an ever increasing "backlog" thus they may not really ever get done. Egads. Its the same amount of work, now its just going to be delayed to,,, whenever? I dont get it. 

[Conan71]

What I am curious about is this line in the TW article....

 "Cascio told the advisory board that instead of the city promising a 24-hour turn-around on pothole repairs generated from calls, customers should be told the work will be done in 72 hours or the near future when crews are scheduled in the area. "

Whats the difference between doing pothole repair in 24hrs or in 72hrs?  If your going to do them, why not keep up and do them the moment they are brought to your attention? Why intentionally delay? I thought that getting any potholes that appeared on my street done pronto was one of the few city services that worked right! Wow, you call, they get done, no fuss no muss, perfect service. Now the suggestion is to "institutionalize" an intentional delay and slow down of services? So now we are going to have our workers stand around with their thumbs up their butts for a few days, poke around and put you on a list, not tomorrow, but on a list a couple days from now? No, wait, they will still be working on potholes that day, but NOT the ones they got notified of the day before, ONLY the ones they got notified of, a couple days before,,, or perhaps even earlier?? We all know how this game will play out, they will get done,,, oh, whenever, and there will likely be an ever increasing "backlog" thus they may not really ever get done. Egads. Its the same amount of work, now its just going to be delayed to,,, whenever? I dont get it. 

Procrastinating on repairs is the whole reason our streets look like they've been carpet-bombed.

[jne]

Looked like the main point was that it was underfunded - and second, its everyones fault.  We couldn't stomach the cost to do it right.

[FOTD]

Bottom line: The Public Diswerks Department needs to be overhauled and those that keep the keys need to turn them over and face their retirement. It's time for them to go. If they don't go, they need to be run out of town.

What non sense.

Again, why is this not a campaign issue?

[buckeye]

Holy smokes.  I agree with every word of that, FOTD.

[Conan71]

Bottom line: The Public Diswerks Department needs to be overhauled and those that keep the keys need to turn them over and face their retirement. It's time for them to go. If they don't go, they need to be run out of town.

What non sense.

Again, why is this not a campaign issue?

Everyone is afraid of the 200 pound shark in the room with the initials of CH.  I asked my two city council candidates when they came to my neighborhood assn. meeting last month if either of them supported changing the D of PW to an at-will position, I got tepid replies from the incumbent and challenger.  I've spoken to Gomez at length before about the PW department and he has basically told me that no one can really answer why Hardt has been given so much power.  I do believe he said if the audit warranted a management shake-up, he'd be in favor.

Does anyone else agree this should become an at-will position as more of a "city manager"?