PDA

View Full Version : Dallas proposes $360 million for bond plan



CTroyMathis
21 December 2002, 01:17 PM
Dallas proposes $360 million for bond plan
Funds would fix roads, spruce up city without raising taxes

12/17/2002

By COLLEEN McCAIN NELSON / The Dallas Morning News

Dallas city officials unveiled the magic number Monday for the proposed bond package: $360 million.

That's how much the City Council could spend to repair roads and spruce up the city while holding the tax rate steady.

The council plans to ask voters to approve a bond program in May, but the size of the package aimed at improving infrastructure has been an open question.

Last week, council members said a bond program that held the line on taxes probably would total less than $300 million. But First Assistant City Manager Mary Suhm said Monday that the city could sell $360 million in bonds without increasing taxes.


Bond breakdown
• $135 million for street improvements
• $40 million for park projects
• $7.9 million for an animal shelter in West Dallas
• $11 million for cultural arts facilities, including the new Center for the Performing Arts
• $4 million for fire department facilities, including a new station in the Red Bird area
• $21 million for libraries, including design of the new Timberglen and West Love Field branches, replacement of libraries at Casa View and Walnut Hill, and facade improvements to the Central Library
• $4.3 million for police facilities, including design of a new South Central police substation in southern Dallas and design and infrastructure of a new academy in Cadillac Heights

"That's great news," Mayor Laura Miller said.
The revised estimate was reached by making a few minor changes to the bond package and by spreading the projects over four years instead of three, Ms. Suhm said. No final decisions have been made about the bond program's size or which projects would be included.

Council members will meet with city staff during the next few weeks to discuss how the bond money should be spent.

Council members have discussed an array of options for the bond program, ranging in price from $255 million to $603 million. But sentiment has shifted during the last week, with several council members and the mayor saying they are unwilling to put a package that raises taxes before voters.

"I would love to see all the park and all the library projects get done, but we just can't afford that right now," council member Mark Housewright said. "We've got to make do with what we've got."

The council passed a 5 percent tax increase in September, and a second tax increase could be necessary to balance next year's budget, Mr. Housewright said.

"I certainly would not be in favor of a third tax increase," he said.

Although council members said they were encouraged by the revised estimate released Monday, a $360 million bond program falls far short of the package that many had hoped to develop.

Ms. Miller pushed for a $515 million bond program as recently as two weeks ago, and some on the council continue to argue that a package of less than $500 million would shortchange the city and leave essential repairs undone.

Ms. Miller said the council would be faced with the unenviable task of whittling a $6 billion needs list down to a $360 million package.

"Council members will have to prioritize," she said. "They'll have to pick and choose."

Council members will discuss the package at their Jan. 15 meeting, and they must finalize the details by Feb. 19.

Council member Veletta Forsythe Lill said she would continue to lobby her colleagues to consider a larger bond package. Raising taxes is unpleasant, but neglecting the city's infrastructure has serious long-term consequences, she said.

"Unfortunately, we are only stalling," Ms. Lill said.

Repairs delayed now could cost the city more in the future, she said.

"I know this is painful, but it's more painful when our infrastructure decays," Ms. Lill said.

gc
21 December 2002, 01:39 PM
This is certainly a touch subject. I am not sure how I feel about the proposed bond at this point. It is always such an enormous give and take game it seems. I'd definitely like to hear some thoughts on this issue.

freewaytincan
21 December 2002, 04:39 PM
Why not cut back on the road spending, and shove some into public transit incentives? There are good and bad things to this.

No matter how much money the city pours into downtown, the private sector must be the ones to act. It's going to take more than just brick sidewalks and trees to get people downtown...

gc
21 December 2002, 07:01 PM
I have to say that I disagree with reducing the funding for road repair. DT Dallas roads are a mess, I know south Dallas has been neglected forever, and there are plenty of roads on the east and west sides that need help too. Unfortunately, the roads have been low priority for such a long time, hence the reason Miller ran on the "pothole" ticket.

bloodandpopcorn
21 December 2002, 08:56 PM
I also agree that roads are important. I really wish that someone in power could take the risk of raising taxes fairly highly to finally get most of this stuff done. The longer we wait, the more theres' goign to be, and the more it's going to cost. It's about time to just grin and bear the cost while we fix up the city. That would show everyone dedication and unity, if it could be pulled off with even decent support from the community. And it's not like Dallas' richer familes can't afford it...

freewaytincan
21 December 2002, 10:41 PM
As long as there are no roads outside of downtown and uptown done. The important thing is to keep this area bustling. Also, I predict that if the state and transportation agencies stop widening highways, public transit will be much more popular. Just a theory; I'm actually working with statistics on the subject.

bloodandpopcorn
21 December 2002, 11:41 PM
I disagree. Most citizens in Dallas still don't live in downtown or uptown, and almost every residential street I drive on is torn up, sometimes to an extent that I am seriously afraid of ruining my car or breaking an axel. Just because downtown and uptown should develop doesn't mean the rest of the community should be shirked as far as necessary maintenence, etc. goes. However, I do agree that widening highways is un-necessary for the most part. In some instances, the roads/highways to be widened have no light rail alternative, and if traffic and all truely get to dangerous levels, widening is not a compeltely evil idea. Personally, I find just about every street wider than four lanes (total, two each way) repulsive, but I also stay in Japan whenever possible and see it as a utopia.

freewaytincan
22 December 2002, 07:15 PM
What I mean, is discourage a) extensive road use, and b) discourage gratuitous road construction. What I will never understand is what people see in randomly curving roads...it is so inconvinient! Grids are much better...think NYC...

bloodandpopcorn
22 December 2002, 10:52 PM
Curving roads are more "fun" to drive on, but I do agree that a grid system is simplier. However, it's just a little bit too late to grid Dallas...

freewaytincan
22 December 2002, 11:07 PM
It is.

Curving roads are not fun, unless it is late, dark, and empty, like Prairie Creek West, right near my house here. Otherwise, straightaways...man! You can get going so fast, like on the old part of Frankford next to TAMU Extension and GB Turnpike. I have hit 97 on there. Don't tell anyone.

Curving roads should only be built out of necessity.

bloodandpopcorn
22 December 2002, 11:13 PM
Well, we differe in opinions here. Hugging tight on a weaving street at 50/60/70 is far more enjoyable to me than going 80/90 on an easy, straight segment.

But again, we have curving streets, and that would be more of an expense and burdon to change than it's worth in the end, so why complain? I think the way some of the curving/oddly interecting streets in Uptown intersect and interact is simply beautiful and far more organic and "natural" than blocky, planned grids (which is admitedly "easier" to navigate).

freewaytincan
22 December 2002, 11:32 PM
True, but look at Allen, for example. There's nothing pretty about it!

bloodandpopcorn
22 December 2002, 11:46 PM
Qutie true. But I don't think it'd be more beautiful with a grid system, nor would Allen be much improved by it. People are going ot be driving long distances to wide strip malls up there anyway... the grid system is only relaly key in urban areas, and the urban areas here are already so concreted that it can't change. And besides, in the end having wild, curving streets may give Dallas some special flaire. Instead of the windy city, we can be the curly city. or the winding city. I think most importantly we just need to use what we have to the best it can be used, and that will help us most in the end. Including our poorly designed, but sometimes beautiful, street system.

gc
23 December 2002, 12:26 AM
I agree blood. I doubt if any of roads will change substantially in DT or uptown. We have to make the best with what we have. I actually enjoy the curving roads in uptown. To me, it is rather unique.

freewaytincan
23 December 2002, 12:45 AM
Hmmm...I thought you meant random curves, that are totally illogical...curving so that you don't know which direction you're going anymore.

Nevermind.