patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Letter to Editor: Hartzell Road Plan Worth a Look

Ocean City resident Michael Hinchman supports public dialogue on ways to improve roads and drainage.

 

Give credit to Councilman Keith Hartzell for galvanizing the public's attention on this issue.
 
Let's objectively say where we stand today:
 
The city underinvested in its roads and drainage for 20 years. Mayor Sal Perillo's administration spent approximately $1.7 to $1.9 million per year as compared to Mayor Gillian's first two years of about $2.4 million per year. The Gillian administration also plans an additional major capital project over the next five to 10 years of replacing the Ocean City Boardwalk between Fifth and 12th streets.
 
Another factor to take into account is that long-term and short-term borrowing rates are at historical lows today. Incidentally, debt service does not fall under the 2 percent cap.

The economy remains problematic with revenue more difficult to come by — whether you are an individual, company or city. Public employees' salary increases are smaller, but are at a particularly high level compared to many other municipalities.
 
I invited Ocean City Business Administrator Mike Dattilo and City Council members Mike DeVlieger, Mike Allegretto and Pete Guinosso to my home last week to try to agree on the methodology of how to attack the roads and drainage issue.

Although private conversations are not something I repeat, I can report the following input from the group.

Allegretto: How are you going to fund it? Workshops in September a good probability.

DeVlieger: Coordinate with utilities better so we don't dig up roads we just paved.

Dattilo: We have maps and are updating our information.

Guinosso: Will make proposal on road openings — so we don't destroy what we fix.

I propose the following:

  • The administration appoint someone or a task force of three or four people to focus on this No. 1 issue. Throw more horsepower at it with Dattilo and/ or Ocean City Finance Director Frank Donato.
  • The administration should present in September a first-class citywide visual presentation of the roads broken down this way: a) the worst roads that need repaving; b) roads in need of repaving; c) roads that need paving and have drainage issues (the most expensive); d) the worst alleys. Per Councilman Hartzell — What is it going to cost in the aggregate?
  • Explain the cost for a block of paving only — give examples.
  • Explain cost from an historical standpoint — more or less today to do paving.
  • Create a timeline for all phases — deciding, permitting, work, etc.
  • What has been permitted today, and what are we attempting to permit? A timeline.

The above is simply organizing pertinent information for voters. I would like to offer up some ideas for thought.

  • What do you save if you just repave the middle of the road and not the shoulders?
  • Roads that have the most traffic, not necessarily the worst roads, should be fixed first.
  • Get more permits now, so long as they do not expire — this puts utilities on notice and you have an inventory so you can be opportunistic in the future.
  • Is it necessary to put 12 inches of concrete alongside the curb in the roadbed? More expensive.
  • Fix in the public's mind $1 million of capital expenditures financed over 10 years at 2.2% is approximately $115,000 per year.   
  • Given new factors to consider about the boardwalk surface, consider delaying the boardwalk reconstruction for a year or 18 months — don't start the boardwalk until we have the wood on premises.
  • The capital plan needs to be presented in the prior fall not in January of a given year — more time to adjust and plan.

Mr. Hartzell's presentation was worthwhile on Saturday — as it brings focus and discussion. Other ideas mentioned were to consider asset sales and, if roads and drainage are that important, to bump other projects. A half of one percent savings on a $70 million budget is $350,000 — tighten your belt.

Personally, I am not in favor of the Hartzell proposal, but I think it should go on the ballot. It is a way to gauge the public opinion. It advances the discussion. I would prefer the administration and City Council come up with a way to fund every year(s) in advance.  You can be more flexible and keep working on the spending side. Also, low interest rates are too good to pass up. We need to organize, focus and be clever.

Michael Hinchman,
Ocean City 

Related Topics: Michael Hinchman and Road Improvements

Eric Sauder

8:20 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012

The more I think about it the more I think we should charge a fee to the builders when they do hook ups and dedicate that money to road repairs. I mean the roads, in part, are in the condition they're in because of all those patches that sink over time, and those patches are needed because of road openings for water and sewer and gas hook ups. It would be nice to enforce the moratorium on road openings after a street has been paved but I don't see it happening. That would mean a moratorium on building and we all know which hand rocks the cradle. Some of it is from utility work and it would be nice to go after the utilities but we probably don't have the muscle for that.

The secondary streets are low priority (I think) since there is a need to repave the main streets at a greater frequency because of all those nasty patches. Should it fall to the taxpayers to pick up after the builders and the utilities? I think the cost of road repairs should fall on the people who are doing the damage.

Two specifics. I don't know if it would be a good idea to pave just the center of the street. If the shoulders deteriorate eventually it will undermine the thoroughfare. Possibly if the shoulders are adequately patched at the same time. As for paving the main streets first, are we ever going to get to the secondary streets? Some of those appear to have been neglected too long.

The intent of this post was to open up a dialogue. What do the rest of you think?

Reply

Eric Sauder

8:27 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012

Councilman DeVlieger makes a good point about coordinating road work with the utility companies. But haven't we heard that before? I hear we have a moratorium against opening streets for a period of time after being paved, but was that ever enforced? So my question is are we really going to do anything different this time? Or will we be talking about it again in another couple of years?

Reply

propertywatcher

11:45 am on Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Eric, It pains me to read all of your well thought out, intelligent, logical, optimistic possibilities and solutions for this City. No one cares, Council isn't listening, everyone want's everything for free and doesn't want to do the work. Council knows this and conducts itself as it wishes......with our money and no accountibility! Surely, with your brains and willingness to share it, there must be an organization that could benefit from your involvement. Give up on this City. Bottom line here is as long as people drive east over Ocean City bridges and that road is landscaped and paved nicely, Councils job is done! Sad but true.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Eric Sauder

2:26 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012

I can't argue your point. And you're right that nothing will change unless the people care enough to do something about it. There aren't enough that do, but there will be one less if I stop caring. I appreciate the advice and I can't say I haven't considered it. But we need more people to get involved and not less. The thing of it is this town dosen't belong to the developers, realtors, boardwalk merchants, and investors. It doesn't belong to city council or the administration either. It belongs to you and me ... the citizens and taxpayers. I think its good to be reminded of that.

Cindy Nevitt

2:37 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Michael and Eric, Please read my OC Unfiltered columns of the last two weeks at OC.shorenewstoday.com for additional perspective on the roads issue, including how the city's revisions to the Asphalt Institute's rating form results in heavily traveled roads receiving artificially low scores, resulting in their getting repaired more often and more quickly than roads in far worse condition.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Eric Sauder

4:27 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Thanks Cindy. I read most of it and replied (on shorenewstoday) to what I read. We're getting some good ideas now. I'm really not for letting it die (Hartzell backed off on his proposal). I think we should implement some of those ideas to build up our coffers so we can move on road and drainage repairs without raising taxes

Comment_arrow

Eric Sauder

8:08 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012

I didn't see the bit about the Asphalt Institute's rating. Hey if I'm off base let me know. I admit I'm mostly going off of observation and haven't made a study of it.

Comment_arrow

OCLocal

7:41 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012

Lt's pave all the roads that nobody travels on first. That makes sense.

Sam Lavner

8:01 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Eric - You slay me with the "I read most of it and replied... to what I read." It prompted me to go to Cindy's column and read your comment(s). And that prompted me to ask you here to indulge me and explain why you chose to devote so much time in responding to a column that you did not take the time to complete. When you set aside the street list the column is brief. Please don't try to convince me that when you said "most" that the only unread part was the list...Just askin'. Sam.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Eric Sauder

8:17 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Sam there were two posts. I responded to the second. It was the first post that had the street listings and yes it was good information and yes I read it but I left no comment on that piece. My comments had to do with the second piece (alternatives for funding, which was the topic of my response). I'm not sure what you're saying ... that I should have incorporated what was in the first piece into my response on the second? I don't think anyone HAS made a study of it and that to me is the problem.

Comment_arrow

Eric Sauder

8:20 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012

As for what I didn't read (before going off half cocked if you think that I did) is the subject of a prior post.

Comment_arrow

Eric Sauder

8:28 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012

As to why I do what I do you'd have to talk to my analyst :)

Comment_arrow

Eric Sauder

8:38 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012

OK. I reread the first piece. I obvioulsy didn't read it carefully enough, but then I didn't comment on it either. I see where the Asphalt Insitiute's rating comes in to play. I was under the impression, when I read it the first time, that it was the city's rating system, and to an extent it is if they modified it.

I have to get ready for work. Later.

Sam Lavner

12:36 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Eric - I corrected my comment but it did not get posted. I saw that you responded to the other column when you said you had not read it entirely but then went about devoting time to a series of responses to it. So, my question remains: When not bother to devote the time to reading an entire column that you devote (relatively) much time responding too? I know this is inane dialogue, but inanity is certalnly allowed here, eh? Just curious to see how you explain it. Thanks, Sam.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Eric Sauder

2:58 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012

I already did explain Sam. I've learned to be careful with you and make a point of carefully answering your questions. At the risk of going in circles (again) and in the interest of not being inane, I'm dropping it. Hope that's OK with you ...

Sam Lavner

4:56 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012

OK - I'll close the loop by saying that you did not explain it.

Reply

Leave a comment