Item B: Funding Strategies for Transportation System Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation

Home Browse Search

timing, neighborhood traffic studies, complaint response, and general information. In response to a question from Ms. Mulder, Mr. Ostrowski pointed out that as other cities tapped general fund money for administrative costs, they were not paying for those costs out of their Road Fund budget. Mr. Carlson pointed out there was a separate Central Services Allocation in the Road Fund and cautioned the committee to consider that point when comparing administrative costs with other cities. Mr. Ostrowski said that the standards in the industry depended on the magnitude of the programs and cautioned against usingbenchmarks for administrative costs. In response to a question from Mr. Wanichek, Mr. Ostrowski replied that funding shortfalls could be closed in a variety of ways, such as general tax revenues. He cautioned that the more complicated the structure, the more difficult it would be for citizens to understand. Mr. Ostrowski said that the other cities in the report were spending $4,000 - $5,000 per mile on pavement preservation projects. He also remarked that other cities were receiving funding for such slurry seals and overlays from general fund sources or special taxes and not from their street funds. In response to a question from Mr. Bonnett, Mr. Ostrowski opined that a transportation utility fee would be preferable to generate funding. Mr. Carlson commented that General Fund moneys for road costs ceased when Lane County began to provide revenues to cities for that purpose. Mr. Bonnett spoke of historical budget shifts that had occurred in Eugene for programs such as street cleaning and street trees. For example, unlike comparable cities, Eugene provides urban forestry services MINUTES- Citizen Subcommittee of the Budget Committee September 19, 2001Page 8