Cutting of Legislators’ Transportation Funds Misguided
A proposal to seriously reduce legislative funds designed to repair roads is ill-considered and will not save money in the long run. It will delay repairs of suburban streets, many of which, by DELDOT’s own grading of the roads, need to be done ASAP. The delays will only lead to increased repair costs when and if the streets are funded in future years. The people who will suffer are the motorists who use the streets and the residents who live there.
While Mike Chalmers of the News-Journal called this a controversial program, it is controversial only for those seeking to gin up controversy:
DOVER — The upcoming state budget would give lawmakers less than half the money they got this year for a controversial program to fix streets, plant trees and pave parking lots in their districts, a legislative committee recommended Sunday.
The General Assembly’s Bond Bill Committee cut the Community Transportation Fund to $8.4 million for the fiscal year that begins Wednesday, down from $18.6 million this year. The move is included in a package of capital-spending measures totaling $435.7 million.
In fairness, there was a time when this fund, then known as the Suburban Street Fund, was controversial. That was in the era when ne’er-do-wells like Norman Oliver got funds siphoned to projects having nothing to do with infrastructure repair. But, they got caught, and DELDOT and the General Assembly cracked down. Under the current system, the purposes for which the funds may be used are written down (Rule 12) and clearly defined. While the legislators may propose how their money is utilized, DELDOT must sign off on each and every expenditure.
This is not to suggest that there still aren’t some abuses. For example, a certain City of Wilmington legislator continues to expend an inordinate amount of money on tree removal/replacement, and actually had to ‘borrow’ money from another city legislator to fulfill the tree promises he/she had made, but could not fund. The same legislator, working with a well-connected councilperson/state employee, also found a way to provide funds to help pave a non-public senior center parking lot.
This example aside, most legislators have demonstrated both the maturity and integrity to abide by the rules and to actually fund the projects most in need of funding. If the rules need to be tightened a little more for the few who think the rules shouldn’t apply to them, so be it. But DELDOT has the sign-off authority now. In the few cases that seem hinky, they can lay down the hammer on their own.
Look, everybody’s picking the budget apart and complaining about their part of the universe that is affected the most. If the powers-that-be want to take the entire process out of the legislators’ hands, fine. El Somnambulo thinks that’s short-sighted since the legislators (presumably) spend lots of time in their respective districts, and they know which roads need repair.
However, the result of this cut will be worsening road conditions, more need for expensive quick fixes, and increased costs once the deferred roadwork finally gets done. Not to mention less construction jobs.
That sounds like a losing bet all around.
ES, How are the dollars allocated? Is it equally split by district or based on linear miles of public road?
Each district gets the same amount. And Senatorial and Rep. Districts get identical amounts even though Senate Districts are roughly twice the size of RD’s.
‘Bulo isn’t sure that ‘linear miles’ of roads would be a fairer way of doing things. Some districts just have more distressed road than others.
A good example of that is the 6th RD. From Philly Pike to the river, the water runs downhill. Lots of roads are in need of repair there. But the representative (currently Tom Kovach) only gets the same amount of $$’s as any other Rep. He can work with some of the senators (McDowell, Henry, Katz and Cloutier) to jointly fund some projects, but it will be impossible to ever get ahead of the needs. Legislators can transfer $$’s to other accounts if they don’t have pressing needs in their own districts, but that is rarely done.
If the legislators ever ceded full responsibility to DELDOT, ‘bulo would hope that DELDOT would prioritize based on their own road rankings, and not simply divide the state up into 41 microverses.
Each district gets the same amount. And Senatorial and Rep. Districts get identical amounts even though Senate Districts are roughly twice the size of RD’s.
A pretty dumb system of allocation, more political than practical.
I know one year Roger Roy paved my street well before it was actually needed.
I’m OK with a temporary cut to save money. This is a tough year.
Well that is sort of the point of pulling it away from the legislators. DelDOT could then spend more money on that section of road, and less on traffic calming on Ebright and Harmony Rd.
Not that those aren’t worthy, but all things might not be equal.
Anon: That likely wouldn’t happen anymore. When the new Rule 12 was instituted, DELDOT annually graded each street eligible for funding.
A 100 ranking would be for a just-repaved street. When the ranking falls into the mid-to-low 50’s or even into the 40’s, it’s time to get it repaved. In fact, once it’s fallen into the 40’s, it’s pretty much crap and HAS to be repaved.
I think the system works pretty well. I agree that it is not perfect, but it is only a supplement to get some projects that Del Dot missed. It is not intended to be the primary way of targeting roads.
Unfortunately Del Dot doesn’t seem to understand some priorities. Street lights were vital to saving money in police protection and increasing the quality of life in Kent Acres and Capitol Park. Del Dot wouldn’t hear of it. They didn’t consider increasing crime as part of the matrix. Fortunately the legislator did. Crime is down and a senior can go out for a walk in those neighborhoods in the evening without fearing that he or she may not make it back before dark.
I am for the program. It is unfairly knocked. It allows the legislator to get something done without all of the votes and bureaucracy. A well connected legislator on the JFC or in the leadership can get pretty much whatever project they want. This program is an equalizer so that all of the people are equally served.
I can understand cutting it this year. There just is not the money for new projects. I hope that this not a trend. The people will be the losers.
“A well connected legislator on the JFC or in the leadership can get pretty much whatever project they want.”
Indeed. Among the projects funded: Tom Sharp, who was still living upstate, paved the streets in the resort community in which he had a vacation home. Bruce Reynolds, former Rep. and William Penn football coach, once spent $40,000 of his money paving his employer’s parking lot.
I’m not even talking here about the criminal misuse of the funds that led to the reforms ES is talking about.
Like any other good idea, there’s always the chance it will be grossly misused.
What is not widely known is that the leadership gets the funds for their district PLUS additional funds they can spread out to legislators in other districts. Needless to say, there’s a ‘suck up’ factor when funds run short in any given district and something needs to be repaired…especially since not all legislators are even aware that their leaders have access to extra $$$$. The system is not good the way it’s designed. The amount of money granted per district is scarcely enough to make any real difference to any project when you consider the actual costs of road work in today’s money. The fact that there is a fund for smaller projects isn’t such a bad thing but the adminstration and distribution of the funds should be done without the political element. And, if that can’t be changed, then one change that would be a huge improvement would be to disallow any legislator who loses his/her seat (or retires) to spend down his/her account before the new legislator takes office. Accounts should be frozen 6 months before any election.
Yes, I’m with PI in that this fund doesn’t sound terribly effective.
I disagree with PI. It is the fact that it is done with a “political” element that makes it worthwile . This is not about building roads. It is about taking care of little problems that aren’t important enough for the bureaucrats to care about.
Being “political” in this sense means actually being able to respond quickly and nimbly to the concerns of the people. It is the infrastructure equivalent to a petty cash fund. No business can run efficiently without one.
As I said this fund gives every person an equal chance to get something done. The JFC, Bond Bill, and Leadership can slip money in all day long. This fund gives the average legislator a chance to do what needs to be done without regard to deal making and political consideration. It is something that actually works.
The ‘Street Fund’ money stinks.
It stinks so much that neither the A.G. nor the U.S. Attorney can muster the courage to bring the scandals in Wilmington to a close. Cases are still open, after all these years.
BTW
I, for one, do not believe for one second that only the Wilmington reps/sens were abusing the funds……they just got caught at it.