November 4th is just around the corner, and the citizens of Tulsa will be voting on two street propositions. Councilors Henderson, Christiansen, Bynum, Patrick, and ultimately Troyer, voted to place these propositions on the ballot. I, along with Councilors Gomez, Eagleton and Westcott voted against these proposals because we supported a comprehensive approach that would actually fix the streets. Out of respect for the process, (i.e., respecting a majority vote of the Council) I have kept a low profile. To this point, my comments have been limited to direct responses to direct questions concerning my opinion of the ballot proposals.
However, as Election Day nears, I feel obligated to make my opinions better known. This is for two reasons, both based on the increasing calls, conversations, and e-mails I have been receiving. First, there seems to be a wide spread impression that my relative silence on the propositions is an unspoken endorsement. Not only do I NOT endorse the propositions, I intend to vote NO on both on November 4th. Second, the public has received limited information from those supporting the propositions as to the long-term impact their passage would have on Tulsa and its citizens. I hope that the following will help explain my position and provide a basis for those interested in making a fact-based decision at the polls.
As Chair of the City Council's Streets Sub-Committee, I was intimately involved in studying Tulsa's street deficiencies. We consulted with external experts, former elected officials, and the Public Works department. We found that years and decades of neglect have created a multi billion dollar problem; the magnitude of which, no one disputes.
The Sub-Committee, working closely with Public Works and other City departments, spent months developing a comprehensive approach to address the problem. That effort led to a proposal that would have ensured the long term commitment necessary to restore and maintain our infrastructure. Unfortunately, that proposal is not on the ballot thanks to some last minute maneuvering by the Mayor and Chamber of Commerce.
In the early 1980's, Tulsa had over 220 employees assigned to street maintenance; today we have 69. Yet, we have doubled the number of lane miles in the City during that time. As a point of reference, there are enough lane miles in Tulsa to take you from New York City to Los Angeles and back to Tulsa with miles to spare (you would also encounter a signalized intersection every 10 miles along the way). Expecting 69 employees, 50 of which are actually in the field, to provide reactive maintenance (e.g., filling pot holes), much less routine and preventive maintenance, on that much pavement is absurd. The proposal that I supported provided restoring 100 of those positions over time. In addition to these positions that would have enabled us to effectively and efficiently extend the life of our streets, we also provided additional funding for right of way maintenance, graffiti abatement, and traffic engineering in order to address dangerous intersections and improve traffic flow. Furthermore, we had included $120 million for street widening in south Tulsa.
The Mayor in a matter of weeks, if not days, developed the propositions on the November 4th ballot. The propositions provide minimal resources for street maintenance, no additional funding for right of way maintenance, graffiti abatement or traffic engineering and have NO funding for widening. While the ballot propositions may hold the pavement condition relatively steady, the backlog of work will increase by $64 million. In addition to increasing the backlog, the limited funding for routine and preventive maintenance will mean that our streets will deteriorate more rapidly than necessary and ensure that our cost will be much higher in the end.
The Mayor and the Chamber of Commerce are promoting the propositions on the ballot as the first step in a master plan. Yet, no one has developed, or is developing, the next step, which means there is no plan. That burden will fall on a future Mayor and future City Councilors. Not only will those officials face a massive street need (even the advocates of the ballot propositions admit this), they will have to fund several years of deferred capital requirements that are being ignored in the current ballot propositions. If these propositions pass, the additional costs to the taxpayers once these ballot propositions expire will be enormous.
Some argue that the comprehensive approach would have tied up our funding sources for too long and that the current ballot proposals would provide Tulsa with flexibility to address future needs. I personally cannot envision a future need that would surpass our immediate need to fix our deteriorating streets (again, no one disputes the financial magnitude of the problem). As to the comprehensive approach tying up future funding sources, I believe the exact opposite is true. In order to reach the same pavement condition in the same timeframe as the longer comprehensive approach, two shorter initiatives will cost hundreds of millions dollars more â€" hundreds of millions of dollars going to streets that could have been saved and dedicated elsewhere.
Others argue that since Tulsa is updating its Comprehensive Plan and modes of transportation may change, a shorter plan makes sense. Regardless of any changes to the Comprehensive Plan, Tulsa will need adequate streets. People will live in houses and will need to get to work and go to stores. Unless we all begin walking or bicycling where we need to go, and expect visitors to Tulsa to do the same, I cannot see a fundamental shift away from needing a reliable street system, especially over the next twelve years.
Some have said that the comprehensive approach would never pass because it would cost too much money. To put things in perspective, the difference in cost to a taxpayer living in a $100,000 house between the comprehensive plan that I supported and the plan on the November 4 ballot is approximately $8 per year, less than a $1 per month.
I doubt that anyone in Tulsa wants to see our streets fixed more than I do. In my opinion, the street propositions on November 4th ballot will not fix the fundamental problems relating to our streets. Furthermore, they will ultimately cost the taxpayers of Tulsa hundreds of millions of dollars more than necessary. Accordingly, I will be voting NO on both propositions.
Some contend that the current ballot proposals are a start, or at least better than nothing. I disagree. I believe that kind of approach and mentality has put us where we are today. Until Tulsans and their elected officials acquire the courage and discipline to actually solve the problem, the streets in our City will continue to decline. The City Council's Streets Sub-Committee spent many months conducting a complete analysis and developing a comprehensive plan that would fix Tulsa’s streets. If the ballot propositions fail, that plan can be placed on the first legally available ballot following November 4th election.
Bill Martinson Tulsa City Councilor, District 5
Yeah, I got that too.
Good to know he thinks the $2 billion plan would've gotten passed.
He has more confidence than I.
I would have voted for papa bear if given the chance. I prefer a real solution to a hastily thrown together, politically pandered, band-aid that just maintains the status quo.
Don't get me wrong, I was all about the big boy too.
I just would've been as shocked as if I'd seen bigfoot humping Nessie's leg when that passed.
I am really leaning towards a NO vote on both of these proposals. Between this, and the disorganization of CURRENT revenues which could be addressed to help take care of the streets without raising taxes, I'm not liking this $450 million plan as much. I agree with Martinson's assessment on the need to get more work done, increased preventative maintenance included, which will have a higher price-tag for the time being.
I'm still not sure, I was pretty sure I was going to vote YES a while back, as on the very basic level, you must agree that the streets need fixing, and arguing over tax plans just furthers their not getting fixed.
And allow me to widen the thread with my giant map of proposed projects for this plan:
(http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/2080/streetsplanmedium256zo6.gif)
I'm not sure there will be zero widening projects as Martinson says, as some of the streets listed for repair would very obviously be cases for widening. The unallocated "to be determined" dollars may be thrown at some pet projects I am guessing.
But looking at the map, you see quite a bit of working being done. Getting that done is still better than nothing, the real lacking item is the needed increase in maintenance workers.
Martinson is just bitter because he spent months creating the $2B plan and it's his sacred cow. He's not going to let reality get between him and his golden calf.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Martinson is just bitter because he spent months creating the $2B plan and it's his sacred cow. He's not going to let reality get between him and his golden calf.
Does that make his point wrong that streets need proper maintenance which SAVES more money in the long run than letting them all fall to pieces?
if Martinson would have cut the pork out of his plan and had ONLY funding for streets I might have listened a little closer, but his lame justifications for funding like the gilcrease were just purposterous.
The vast majority of projects like Vision 2025 used terms like "streetscaping" to conceal the fat on items like Acorn streetlights (which in themselves only the cost of installation and none of the costs of operation were considered), so im a bit apprehensive.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Martinson is just bitter because he spent months creating the $2B plan and it's his sacred cow. He's not going to let reality get between him and his golden calf.
Does that make his point wrong that streets need proper maintenance which SAVES more money in the long run than letting them all fall to pieces?
Yeah but I didn't see a time machine in his plan so that point is pretty moot.
Beyond who is seeking credit and for what, I think it behooves the voters to really look at the multitude of plans that were proposed and finally the one that was adopted and put on the ballot.
After doing that myself, I have found the $451 million package wanting. Specifically in the approach it takes but I can almost rationalize it given today's economy and the fear that a larger package might not pass...almost. Yes, $2 billion is a lot of money given the uncertain financial times we are, but that plan was a well crafted and well studied case for 'fixing' the streets, not just maintaining the status quo. The package put for on the ballot according to the public works department may increase our street index from a current 60 to a 62...I stress that it may. A 2 point gain on the street index for streets already in bad need of repair and replacement will do little more than patch and fill.
If you want to look at what it will truly take to fix Tulsa streets, you have no further to look than those surrounding the BOK Center and the adjacent streets downtown. The manner in which these streets were torn up and rebuilt is the manner in which we need to truly fix our streets for good and where we can begin providing proper and scheduled maintenance. You saw how the old streets were torn up, new bedding put down, reinforcement put in place and fresh concrete poured. That is truly fixing a street, not just putting more asphalt fill in an already deteriorated and crumbling surface only pothole. The underlying strucure is no longer sound. What is good for downtown should be good enough for all of Tulsa...but this will take time and money. We cant be so naive as to think that to properly fix our roadways for good is not going to cost us anything. It is the price we have to pay for allowing city leaders to neglect our roadways and not hold them to a higher degree of accountability in this matter.
I asked Councilor Martinson to pull what some have determined to be "pork" and make it a streets only package. I think in hindsight, he wont be opposed to this if given the opportunity again. But I also asked him to put the cost, that to some seems staggering and unjustified, into perspective. A figure of $125 per year increase in property tax for a home averaging $100,000...lets say you live in a $250,000 home, that's $312.50 per year to get your roads fixed properly. Now take the potential cost in one year of vehicle maintenance for driving on roads like we have now - $100 for alignment (once a year if lucky), $300 in new tires (lets say 2 if you're unlucky), $400 for shocks or struts (when ya hit that really big pothole), and $300 for body work or tire rim (for when you hit the mother of all potholes), and dont forget, asking your buddy or significant other to drive you around while the works being done (priceless). Now put that in perspective...$312.50 or $1,100.00...and yes, thats a worst case scenario but it does happen, I have the proof!
It really is all relative to what you want or what you can live with. But when you put that plan in perspective with the $451 million...you are putting apples to oranges. $1.9 billion (minus 'pork') fixes the streets...$451 million patches what is already there. I will be voting no to both propositions on Tuesday in favor of maybe even a new plan that will truly fix the streets and not have me driving over the same patched pothole waiting for it to rain again and see the fill pop out.
Where did you get the conclusion that the $500M plan is just patching but the $2B plan would do full road replacement? They both do the same thing, just less years and in less places. Keep in mind one plan is for $100M/yr and the other was for $160M/yr. They weren't that far apart.
Martinson's plan http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2008/pdf/CompleteOurStreets2008optimized.pdf included complete replacement of some of the most needy roads, like what they are doing to Sheridan at the BA. There was also overlay, street widening, traffic control, bridge rehabilitation and replacement.
Here is the 5 year plan - http://tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/5-Year%20Street%20Plan.pdf
The 5 year plan does not provide specific rehab or replacement plans as detailed in the 12 year plan. I should also point out there where the Public Works department identified 6 bridges as structurally deficient in the 12 year plan, it only identified 2 bridges as such in the 5 year. Structurally deficient! They identified 16 bridges as functionally obsolete in the 12 year but could only identify 2 in the five year. How did these SD and FO bridges suddenly repair themselves and not be a serious concern for public safety?
The mayor's 5 year plan gives absolutely no specifics when it comes to how and to what degree arterial non-arterial streets will be rehabed or reconstructed. That is the fundamental difference in a street's package that is put together with all the parties involved, studied through and through and one that is slapped together in a quick fashion. Give me substance, give me something tangible that I can hold my city government accountable too. Martinson's plan may not have been perfect but at least is provided specifics.
If you are wondering what I am talking about, look at the last several pages of both proposals and see the differences in the level of information provided and make your informed decision.
sgrizzle stated - Where did you get the conclusion that the $500M plan is just patching but the $2B plan would do full road replacement? They both do the same thing, just less years and in less places. Keep in mind one plan is for $100M/yr and the other was for $160M/yr. They weren't that far apart.
Keep in mind that while not that far apart per year, you are spreading the cost not over 5 years but 12 years. There is a huge difference in the amounts when you also consider ongoing future maintenance costs associated with continued dilapidated streets over a 5 year period than a 12 year period. The 5 year plan as stated offers no specifics with regards to reconstruction/replacement, overlay, widening, etc. Public Works officials have stated this would be a patch job to keep the street index at or slightly above their current index average of 60. If you do not increase the index significantly, you are only patching. They stated during study of the 12 year plan that reconstruction and proper rehabilitation could result in an average index of 70-74 I think, not great but far better than maintaining status quo once you consider the rest of the package where public works crews are staffed efficiently enough to provide proper and on-going preventative maintenance. The 5 year proposal provides no increase in staffing or materials as evidenced on the summary page in the beginning of the proposal.
From a marketing perspective, $2 bln and 12 years is a difficult number to market to voters.
We've never been asked to approve a package that large. The $282mm river tax went down in flames. Partially due to it being a "Tulsa thing" and we were relying on the entire county to pass it. Main message was though: "We don't want more taxes until you can manage what you are already being given". As well, another resounding message to come out of that no vote was that citizens don't want another huge tax package thrown at them with vague rewards and plans which are not fully-developed well before it goes to a vote.
I believe this can all be staged in more pallateable pieces. Use the first five year, $451mm project as a probationary period to see how that goes, then give us the opportunity to vote for another seven years of improvements.
It's time to get started on the streets. If citizens like what they see, they will vote for more. A $2 bln package will never, ever pass. Martinson needs to get over himself and see what it is the citizens want. It's not his city, it's OUR city.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
From a marketing perspective, $2 bln and 12 years is a difficult number to market to voters.
no, from a PORK perspective 2 bln is hard for voters to swallow.
please back2basics, let's hear your wild justifications for the non streets funding in the 2 bln package.....I need a good laugh.
Actually Inteller I have offered no justification for the 'pork' as you put it. If you read my first posting, I said I had actually asked Councilor Martinson to remove what everyone was calling 'pork' and make it a streets only package since that's the fundamental issue facing us. If later there is money needed for Fire, Police, Telecommunications, Gilcrease, Convention Center, PAC, Parks, etc etc then bring it to the voters and let them decide separately if they want to continue funding those items I suppose. But if you want a streets only package, then you have to exclude all other programs and call it that.
Take out the $240 million in 'pork' or non-streets funding and its $1.81 Billion plus or minus.
I completely agree with you Conan...$2 bil is a lil large to get approval..wish it wasnt but lets face it, it is. I also agree that voters have sent a clear message saying they dont want vague rewards and plans which are not fully-developed well before it goes to a vote.
But thats what you get under the proposed $451mil plan. There are no concrete rewards or plans by which to measure the effectiveness of our municipal officers over the next 5 years. If the $451mil plan had concrete specifics such as the $2bil plan, I would be more inclined to favor it...I can measure it, I can express my appreciation or my disapproval with it but without specifics, how do we the tax paying citizenry hold anyone accountable? Thats all Im saying...if you just look on the face of it, there is more concrete information within the $2bil package than the $451mil. If you want concrete and not vague, dont support it but be ready to demand your councilors and mayor listen to you and put forth a more palatable package that gives you those concrete specifics and is ready to hold them accountable is all Im getting at. "we are fixing this stretch of road this specific way, estimating this much money and this timeframe for completion."
quote:
Originally posted by Back2Basics
Actually Inteller I have offered no justification for the 'pork' as you put it. If you read my first posting, I said I had actually asked Councilor Martinson to remove what everyone was calling 'pork' and make it a streets only package since that's the fundamental issue facing us. If later there is money needed for Fire, Police, Telecommunications, Gilcrease, Convention Center, PAC, Parks, etc etc then bring it to the voters and let them decide separately if they want to continue funding those items I suppose. But if you want a streets only package, then you have to exclude all other programs and call it that.
Take out the $240 million in 'pork' or non-streets funding and its $1.81 Billion plus or minus.
Yes, and he could've marketed it as a 750M 5yr plan and just covered the first 5 years or so.
Each arterial, intersection, bridge, and neighborhood project proposed (which I used to make that map) had an estimated price tag attached to it. While I can't tell what method of resurfacing, landscaping, or total replacement of the street from the ground up, is being done, perhaps someone more knowledgeable could surmise that from the cost projection?
Here are the arterials and intersections: http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/pdf/0808/Streets5Year.pdf
I'm having trouble finding the file that had all the neighborhood and bridge projects listed in it.
While not totally explicit, they do have cost projections for specific projects laid out.
I think most of the people who are against the streets proposal were just looking for any reason to oppose it. On this forum I have heard, "it isn't enough money to do it right", "it is too much money", "the city can't be trusted to do it right because the staff needs to retire", "the new Mayor can't be trusted", to I think the streets are fine just the way they are".
I just want something done. I am voting yes so we can get some of the roads repaired and the complainers can find some other reason to bash the mayor and her staff.
The cost to me is going to be less than seventy five cents a day. It is worth it just to get the potholes gone.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I think most of the people who are against the streets proposal were just looking for any reason to oppose it. On this forum I have heard, "it isn't enough money to do it right", "it is too much money", "the city can't be trusted to do it right because the staff needs to retire", "the new Mayor can't be trusted", to I think the streets are fine just the way they are".
I just want something done. I am voting yes so we can get some of the roads repaired and the complainers can find some other reason to bash the mayor and her staff.
The cost to me is going to be less than seventy five cents a day. It is worth it just to get the potholes gone.
The last major front end work I had done on my truck due to potholes amounted to far more than .75 a day over a year. [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by Back2Basics
I completely agree with you Conan...$2 bil is a lil large to get approval..wish it wasnt but lets face it, it is. I also agree that voters have sent a clear message saying they dont want vague rewards and plans which are not fully-developed well before it goes to a vote.
But thats what you get under the proposed $451mil plan. There are no concrete rewards or plans by which to measure the effectiveness of our municipal officers over the next 5 years. If the $451mil plan had concrete specifics such as the $2bil plan, I would be more inclined to favor it...I can measure it, I can express my appreciation or my disapproval with it but without specifics, how do we the tax paying citizenry hold anyone accountable? Thats all Im saying...if you just look on the face of it, there is more concrete information within the $2bil package than the $451mil. If you want concrete and not vague, dont support it but be ready to demand your councilors and mayor listen to you and put forth a more palatable package that gives you those concrete specifics and is ready to hold them accountable is all Im getting at. "we are fixing this stretch of road this specific way, estimating this much money and this timeframe for completion."
"Concrete"? There's gotta be a pun in there somewhere. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
From a marketing perspective, $2 bln and 12 years is a difficult number to market to voters.
no, from a PORK perspective 2 bln is hard for voters to swallow.
please back2basics, let's hear your wild justifications for the non streets funding in the 2 bln package.....I need a good laugh.
That is a mighty big pork sword to swallow, isn't it?