The Tulsa City Council voted 5-4 to place the two street propositions on the ballot.  Councilors Eagleton, Westcott, Gomez and I [Martinson] voted against the propositions.
 
As Chair of the City Council's Streets Sub-Committee, I was intimately involved in studying Tulsa's street deficiencies.  We consulted external experts and worked closely the Public Works department.  In short, years and decades of neglect have created a multi billion dollar problem.  We spent months
developing a comprehensive approach to addressing that need.  That proposal would have ensured the long term commitment necessary to restore and maintain our infrastructure.  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 preventive maintainance, on that much pavement is absurd.  The original longer term 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, grafitti abatement, and traffic engineering in order to address dangerous intersections and improve traffic flow.  Furthermore, we
had included $120 million for street widening.
 
The shorter plan was developed by the Mayor in a matter of weeks, if not days. It provides minimal resources for street maintenance, no additional funding for right of way maintenance, grafitti abatement or traffic engineering and has NO funding for widening.  While it may hold the pavement condition relatively
steady, it will increase the backlog of work by $64 million.  The difference in cost to a taxpayer living in a $100,000 house between the longer plan and the plan on the November 4 ballot is approximately $8 per year, less than a $1 per month.
 
I my opinion, the street propositions on November 4 ballot will not fix the fundamental problems relating to our streets and will ultimately cost the taxpayers of Tulsa hundreds of millions of dollars more than necessary.  Accordingly, I will be voting NO on both propositions.
 
Bill Martinson
Tulsa City Councilor, District 5