Here is our street bond election details

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear


... I might vote for it.

I just fell out of my chair because
A. FB might vote YES on something
B. I might agree with FB

[bokworker]

^ +1

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear


... I might vote for it.

I just fell out of my chair because
A. FB might vote YES on something
B. I might agree with FB

The Tulsa County Ring is not going to like the City of Tulsa grabbing their 4-to-Fix-the-County and Vision 2025 perpetual Tax Honey Pot.

Not...One...Little...Bit.

[}:)]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Looks like the city strategy of letting the streets decay to this point may work in driving voters to the polls to continue on with those previous promises of expirations. But there are no other solutions to raising enormous infrastructure funding short of toll roads all over the place. I'll vote for it as long as the entire public diswerks department gets gutted along with the avenues.

Might as well, might as well.

GO.

We've already GOT toll roads all over the place.

Turner Turnpike.  
Indian Nations Turnpike.
Will Rogers Turnpike.
Muskogee Turnpike
Cimarron Turnpike
Creek Turnpike.  

We're the Turnpike Capital of America.

Just try finding a free interstate into or out of Tulsa.

There isn't one.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear


... I might vote for it.

I just fell out of my chair because
A. FB might vote YES on something
B. I might agree with FB

The Tulsa County Ring is not going to like the City of Tulsa grabbing their 4-to-Fix-the-County and Vision 2025 perpetual Tax Honey Pot.

Not...One...Little...Bit.

[}:)]

That's one of my favorite parts.

[Conan71]

Screw the roads, let's do TCC first.

[tulsacyclist]

Do the River!!1~

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Screw the roads, let's do TCC first.

I think you can now stick a Fork into TCC's Task Grab, cause it's definitely Well-Done.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.

Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.

If you think all of the streets in the 200 square miles of Tulsa can be rehabilitated and then maintained for $100 million over several years, then you have a profound misunderstanding of the issues.

One must think in terms of the problem, and just what it is Tulsan's are complaining about.

Hewgley's plan does two things which are not covered in Martinson's plan. However, I do agree with Martinson in that at least some of those future revenue streams needs to be assigned to road upgrades.

The two things are:

1.) It does paving in 2008.

2.) It provides a ten year paving program (at $10 Million/year, an amount Hewgely contends is about that which prevents self-causing cost escalation and  massive street closings)

This plan recognizes that MOST of the current problem is in PAVING, not road re-construction from the ground up.

The biggest problem with Martinson's plan is it provides no new money until at least 2011, when the latest 4-to-Fix expires. Then, in 2012 when the current 3rd Penny expires. And, finally, in 2017 when V2025 expires.

So, either we wait for funds until those times (which doesn't solve the current problem in any way), or we bond now for later, paying huge amounts of interest on bond money over a very long term. Makes a current $1 more like $0.50 in value.

The July 31 vote, then, should be a new $100 Million bond to extract already funded 3rd Penny CAPITAL projects from the 3rd Penny so that the displaced 3rd SALES TAX funds can be used for a paving program (which can be funded ONLY by Sales Tax and amounts to maintenance vs. capital projects).

That's where the $10M/yr paving program gets started this year and lasts for ten years.

In the meantime, when those other taxes expire, they can be picked up as additional Road Re-Construction funding (CAPITAL and/or paving projects).

The first is not dependent upon the second.
And, it solves 80% or more of the issue as the public sees things.

As those other taxes expire, the public can then judge how they wish those funds to be directed.

Martinson's plan does now, what we can do much later. And, later, the parties could be expected to be considerably different. Maybe not have exactly the same viewpoint at the time.

I'm not against tying at least SOME those funds up in some way, but it doesn't really address the current problem well. One $700 ($636 + $62) Bond Issue on this July 31 isn't what I had in mind.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear


... I might vote for it.

I just fell out of my chair because
A. FB might vote YES on something
B. I might agree with FB

The Tulsa County Ring is not going to like the City of Tulsa grabbing their 4-to-Fix-the-County and Vision 2025 perpetual Tax Honey Pot.

Not...One...Little...Bit.

[}:)]

That's one of my favorite parts.

...mine, too.

[Wrinkle]

Wanted to add that I see no need or reason to increase Ad Valorem (Property) Taxes at all to do this under any circumstance.

....not even to 'match' OKC.

UPDATED:

In Martinson's plan, his 3.3 mills of Ad Valorem is the ONLY NEW MONEY in the current proposal which becomes immediately (next year) available. That's the $62 Million which is going to be a seperate question AND is allocated to road reconstruction CAPITAL projects, NOT maintenance (i.e., paving).

Remember 80% of the problem?

This plan kicks off with Capital Projects of road reconstruction and leaves maintenance for later with the renewal of existing, expiring taxes.

I think if people knew this, they'd not be pleased.

[TheArtist]

So, to make this short...

Bond part will enable road widening immediately.

Road repair wont start till 2010 or 2011.



While 2010 isnt that far off. I dont think I want to listen to people gripe about the condition of the roads, and that not being worked on, for several more years.

[mrhaskellok]

One observation...

95% of a "bad road's" surface isn't bad.  That means we are lugging in tons and tons of asphalt to fix such a small surface area.  Many communities have found by milling down the asphalt,  compacting the base, adding a geotextile,  then relaying the recycled asphalt is all that is needed is so many cases.  

Also, I have seen many community successfully use concrete to patch bad spots. Cut out cracks and bad spots, dig out, compact, then rebar and concrete smoothed.  The level or elevation of the surface of the road is usually consistent enough to pull this off great.  What was done on hwy 169 was a joke and a very very poor representation of what can be done using this method.

I guess my question is, how much would it cost to just fix the bad SPOTS, not the whole roads?  Buy 100 chop saws and just start cutting out the bad spots, and see how much of a difference it makes.

I have seen this first had here in Haskell.  We let out to bid the overlay of a brick street that had been patched incorrectly for so long it was just terrible.  The contractor milled down the bad asphalt patches, cut out the weak spots in the brick street, and patched with concrete.  I got to drive on the road before they overlaid it at this point, it was the smoothest street in town!  
I am just a skeptic after that of full intersection to intersection repaving projects if the problem is a 500 sq. ft. of cracks and dips.

JMHO

[mrhaskellok]

Oh, and one more thought...

Just like with so many other forms of infrastructure improvements, we need to stop thinking that we can't buy the equipment to do our own roads.  

I don't mind using private companies to do all the work, but not without a warrantee.

The nice thing about the council form of government is the people have someone to point fingers at if the roads are built poorly or without any much thought.  Now, a counselor can and will just point at the contractor for a job done poorly.  If we as municipalities do the job, you are less likely to have a street director in there for 20 years if they don't do their job right.  It is the checks and balances of the system.  A street department will want to do a good job because their job depends on it.  No one wants to fire a street department employee for "having" to fix a contractors poorly designed road.  

I also believe that if the road construction was done in house it would be much cheaper.  When a citizen sees something being done incorrectly, there are no contracts binding the continuation of insanity (hwy 169's latest mess).  How many of us were going, uh hello?  What are you doing?  
[]  

You want people to be on board, prove that all this road work wont be done through contracting deals.  The muni is responsible, let them stand up and take the task of fixing them.

[Hoss]

Yeah, what exactly WAS done on 169?  I drive that every day and it looks unfinished and rides horribly.  I feel like kicking someone from ODOT in the cooter everytime I drive that piece of crap.  It's so bad now I've been using surface streets, and it's tough to do given today's gas prices.