From the Vice Mayor • June 24, 2009

Sound wall construction raised concerns about cost, benefits

Several people have asked me questions about the recent unanimous decision of all three members of the Board of Commissioners not to move forward with construction of a sound wall in the northern portion of Oak Hill. Although I can speak only for myself and not the other Commissioners, I want to share some of the concerns expressed in hopes this will answer these questions.

The issue before the Board of Commissioners at our April meeting was whether to approve an engineering contract to design a sound wall only for the area north of Harding Place along I-65. The engineering cost for both north and south sound walls was estimated to be approximately $100,000. The ultimate cost to build a sound wall north of Harding Place was estimated to be $4 million.

I had a number of concerns. First, the sound wall would only be built north of Harding Place. There are almost as many residents of Oak Hill living south of Harding Place who face the same noise issues. This proposal would have done nothing to help them, and fairness would require that we help all residents who are dealing with this issue.

Second, the cost of the project was too high given the limited resources available to the City of Oak Hill and the lack of other funding sources for the project. This sound wall, only for the northern section of the city, would have cost approximately two-thirds of the city's savings. There was discussion of funding the project by borrowing the money. Oak Hill currently has no debt. Borrowing this money would have cost the city 20% to 30% of its projected budget over each of the next 30 years. I could not agree to spend such a large percentage of Oak Hill's savings or strap Oak Hill with such a significant debt burden on a project that would benefit a relatively small portion of the entire city.

This concern is heightened by the fact that Oak Hill relies on unpredictable state-shared revenue for the lion's share of its budget. Bills are introduced almost every year in the legislature to eliminate or reduce the revenue that is shared with cities. If such a bill were enacted after we built the proposed sound wall, we would not have savings to continue the functions performed by Oak Hill or the revenue to service the debt incurred building the sound wall.

I also have concerns with the limited benefit a sound wall will actually provide. One study indicated that almost all of the benefit from a sound wall is for the first row of houses closest to the wall. Another study indicated that more than 200 feet from a sound wall, wind (instead of the wall itself) is the greatest factor in determining the sound level. Sound walls are not effective to prevent sound from reaching houses at a higher elevations—certainly an issue in Oak Hill—and may actually amplify the sound going in the direction of those houses. Reviewing these studies, it is apparent that sound walls are not a panacea for the noise problems near I-65.

These noise problems were created by the state and federal governments that built and expanded I-65, which is actually located outside Oak Hill. Although Oak Hill did not create these noise problems, Oak Hill was being asked to pay approximately 85% of the cost to build the proposed northern sound wall. We would like to help all of our residents who live along I-65 and suffer from noise problems, but this did not strike me as a fair proposal.

Right-of-way problem

Additionally, TDOT indicated the sound walls could not be built on TDOT's right-of-way. As a result, this sound wall would have to be built on private property through easements given by homeowners. There are some areas, however, in which there is no private homeowner abutting I-65, such as the area south of the Oak Hill Assembly of God. Sound walls could not be built in these areas. Moreover, one or two homeowners who did not want the sound wall built or who demand an exorbitant amount for an easement along their property could destroy the entire project.

Finally, concerns were expressed as to whether awarding the contract might involve a conflict of interest.

Resources should benefit all

If we had significantly more funds and greater financial backing from the state and federal governments, we would have been more receptive to this proposal. However, given the limited funds available to the city, I believe our resources are better used in a way that benefits more of our citizens, such as through increased police patrols, twice-weekly backdoor trash pick-up, monthly brush and limb pick-up, and continued local control over planning and zoning decisions.

Following the April vote, at the suggestion of Commissioner Throckmorton, City Manager Kevin Helms has investigated using vegetation to reduce I-65 noise. A study of this "greenwall" concept found that 200 feet of dense vegetation would be necessary for a significant reduction in sound. "It is often impractical to plant enough vegetation along a road to achieve such reductions," the study stated, "however, if dense vegetation already exists, it could be saved." According to the study, planting vegetation of insufficient density or with a width of less than 200 feet would only provide "psychological relief."

Oak Hill will continue to work for sound walls to benefit our residents, but it will require more cooperation from the state and federal government. If you are concerned about this issue, you can help by contacting your state and federal representatives to ask that they provide funding for sound walls along I-65.

Vice Mayor Austin McMullen

Austin McMullen is a lawyer with Bradley Arant Boult Cummings.

He has undergraduate degrees in business administration and economics from Millsaps College and a law degree from Vanderbilt.

Austin serves as a volunteer with several community and professional organizations and am an active Deacon and Sunday school teacher at First Presbyterian Church. Austin and his wife Kelly live at 955 Greerland Drive with their three children.