Tulsa World: Streets meeting offers comparison of 2 proposals

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Tuesday, February 09, 2010 | WIRELESS

Home > News > Article

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Streets meeting offers comparison of 2 proposals

By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
Published: 7/8/2008 2:07 AM
Last Modified: 7/8/2008 2:47 AM

Document: Read the full $2 billion, 12-year streets proposal

With not one but two streets proposals now on the table, Mayor Kathy Taylor and the City Council publicly offered a side-by-side comparison of them Monday night.

About 100 people turned out at Salk Elementary School for the latest in a series of town hall meetings that have been as much about keeping up with the latest developments in the evolving streets saga as anything.

Only last week, Councilor Bill Christiansen released a $270 million, five-year proposal that he put together with former Tulsa Streets Commissioner Jim Hewgley.

Christiansen said he did so after listening to people at the previous town hall meetings grumble about the $2 billion, 12-year proposal.

"I think it needs to be smaller and shorter-term," he explained to the crowd Monday, drawing some applause.

But Councilor Bill Martinson, the architect of the $2 billion proposal, said before the meeting that Christiansen's plan is "woefully inadequate" to address the city's backlog of street needs.

"It's very similar to what we've done in the past, which is the reason we're in this deplorable situation with our streets," he said.

Both proposals would use extensions of existing sales-tax streams and property-tax increases for funding.

The smaller proposal obviously would require smaller increases. But where they mainly differ is in what they would accomplish.

The $270 million program, which would run from 2009 to 2013, would sock all of the money toward a paving and crack-sealing effort and do some street reconstruction.

Christiansen said it would be up to the Public Works Department, the council and the mayor to determine where in the city the money would be spent.

The $2 billion program, which would run from 2010 to 2021, would be a comprehensive approach to bring the city's overall Pavement Condition Index score to a satisfactory level and maintain it.

The program would provide funds to take care of the city's rights-of-ways, bridges and railroad crossings and add more than 100 workers to form an in-house street maintenance crew.

It also contains $120 million for street-widening pro- jects and $281 million to main- tain the city's buildings, buy buses and fire apparatus, and make telecommunications upgrades.

Public Works Department Deputy Director of Engineering Paul Zachary said that under the $270 million proposal, the overall condition of the city's streets would continue to decline.

"It wouldn't be enough money to get us to where we want to be," he said.

Christiansen maintains that his five-year proposal could be renewed by voters if the city were doing a good job. He also said it would not tie up all of the city's funding options for the foreseeable future.

Taylor said Christiansen's proposal "deserves dialogue."

If a streets package is to be on the Nov. 4 ballot, officials have until early September to determine what's best, she said.

"We're all working toward the same goal, and that's to fix the streets," the mayor said before the public meeting.

Residents in attendance were split on how they want city leaders to proceed.

Barbara Holland said she doesn't want people to settle for a smaller plan that doesn't accomplish what needs to be done.

"We need a permanent solution to this problem," she said. "I don't want us to throw good money after bad."

But Robert Lang said he wants to see the streets issue tackled in segments.

"I don't want the city to bite off more than it can chew," he said, adding that the economy is a major factor in people's minds.

"Something needs to be done, but $2 billion is a lot to ask for right now."

Brian Barber 581-8322
brian.barber@tulsaworld.com

Streets meetings

6:30 p.m. Monday: Hardesty Regional Library, 8316 E. 93rd St.

6:30 p.m. July 21: Rudisill Regional Library, 1520 N. Hartford Ave.

By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Show: Most Recent Comment First

Add your comment

8 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you. -- Web Editor Jason Collington

	Report Comment Davy Crotchety, (7/8/2008 7:11:37 AM) "Public Works Department Deputy Director of Engineering Paul Zachary said that under the $270 million proposal, the overall condition of the city's streets would continue to decline." After that $270 million is spent, our streets will be WORSE; says so right there. Do we REALLY need to continue to discuss Hewgley and Christianson's proposal? It's simply more of the same underinvestment that landed us in this position in the first place.
	Report Comment RMS, (7/8/2008 8:30:39 AM) Councilor Christianson's proposal is nothing more than a bandaid solution for a problem that requires major surgery. I am dissappointed that Councilor Christian cannot(or will not )work for all the citizens of Tulsa. I think the package presented by Clr. Martinson makes a great deal of sense,and will provide us with the type of streets we so badly need.
	Report Comment Brute, (7/8/2008 9:03:20 AM) If one can spend $270 million on roads and end up with a worse product than when they began, the problem would appear to be those in charge. The Hewgley plan is a sensible solution. It prevents every road in town being torn up at the same time (remember how many businesses failed during the last big roads project?). It leaves the 3rd Penny for its current and future use, as well as Vision2025 when it expires. To garnish $2 Billion using all funding sources available for the next 12 years is not only wishful thinking, it's poor resource planning by people who won't even be around then.
	Report Comment OKLA, (7/8/2008 9:28:47 AM) There's a lot of competition for our dollars. Property tax has been routinely raised every year since 1996 by 5%, compounded annually. PSO wants a 17.5% increase. ONG is knocking on the rate increase door. City utility rates are rising. Fuel is at record levels. Groceries are going up. Medical costs are rising and insurance is out of reach for most. Those on a fixed income who retired more than three years ago are strapped. It seems unwise to commit what funds are available until 2021 for streets although nobody argues they desperately need attention. It's a dilemma. I wonder how many tax dollars are spent in Okla City simply because it's the state capital that we miss out on. . .
	Report Comment irwindale, (7/8/2008 9:33:59 AM) No more patch work!! Fix it right.
	Report Comment Wheels, (7/8/2008 1:39:57 PM) Okay so oil is down $10 and you think it's over? How do you even know that in TWELVE YEARS you will even be able to afford to drive to christianson's district or to any of the other items on the 12bill/12yr plan. My vote is for less money and fix NOW, while I still have the ability to drive a little. Kitty wants your money and so do her other cronies. Oh hey, how 'bout that 7.1 million....LOL. The joke is truly on the back of hard working Tulsans.
	Report Comment truth4freedom, (7/8/2008 9:27:22 PM) How about the city use the resources it has to fix the streets. If that means leaning all other departments out then so be it. If that means using available money for streets instead of frivolous purchases so be it. Frauline Taylor and her lock step council think they can spend millions on pet projects then slap the taxpayers in the face for millions more. Absurd. How about they do their job or we can find someone else who will. Not one penny more! No new taxes.
	Report Comment marine2.0, (7/9/2008 8:21:24 AM) Get rid of the pork in the 2 billion dollar proposal and it could work. The councilors act as if there is no money for street repairs and that we have to come up with it all. We have money for street repairs but just not in the amount that is needed. So why don't we use the funding that we currently have coming in to accomplish the widening projects, bus purchases and telecommunications upgrades and use the increased income from the proposals to just do the needed street repairs. This would in return decrease that amount of the proposal, focus just on street repairs and resignate much better with the voters. There also needs to be a guarentee that the money raised for the street repairs can not be utilized for anything else. There should be a schedule posted of the street repair projects so that citizens can keep track of what is happening and the progress that is or is not being made. Also what ever happened to the proposal to recoup the sales tax from the state. Maybe this seems odd but how do we have money for a new city hall, Drillers stadium proposal and a $185 million arena but we can not address the basic road needs. Somehow the want of a few overshot the need of so many. Let's stop with the frivilous garbage and let's get done what we need in a straight forward, fiscally responsible way.

Add Your Comment
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.