State Transportation Gov Report - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

11 1 1 1 ~ ~ 11 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 to funding transportation facilities and utility. Rather than relying on the state services. Currently, the legislature, legislature and local governments to set county commissions and city councils all rates, a professional agency determines have responsibilities to set tax rates to revenue needs and sets the rate design. pay for roads and other transportation services, and the lines of responsibility The Vision Committee recommends for raising these funds are often un- the Legislature create a Transportation clear. In addition, much of the state gas Utility Commission, giving it limited taxes (and weight mile fees} are distrib- powers initially but with the expectation uteri to cities and counties under a fixed that the Commission will take greater formula. Cities and counties are also responsibilities as the model proves expected to contribute some of their itself. Members were concerned about general revenue to support local roads, whether the Oregon Legislature could but there is not a clear rationale for delegate its authority to set tax rates to determining the relative share between an executive branch agency. In addi- state and local taxes. Also, the ability of tion, it is unclear how another principle local governments to contribute to their of Oregon road finance -cost respon- roads is constrained because of prop- sibility -would be implemented. These erty tax limitations and, more recently, constitutional issues should be resolved the loss of federal timber receipts. Or- before the Commission is fully empow- egon's legislature is asked to set rates erect to set rates to recover the cost of to pay for the transportation system transportation infrastructure. The initial without a clear accounting of local and authorization for the Commission should state needs and without a clear theory sunset January 2012, requiring a legis- of funding responsibility among state lative review of these matters. and local jurisdictions. The Commission would have five mem- Throughoutthe state, it is clear that bers, representing the broad interests revenues cannot even maintain exist- of Oregon, with a chair appointed by ing facilities, as evidenced by ruts and the Governor. The legislature would al- potholes. This is particularly disturbing lot funds to hire staff, including loaned because an optimal maintenance sched- staff from the Oregon Public Utilities ule (in terms of life cycle costs) requires Commission, the Oregon Department of maintenance well before the need is Transportation and local transportation perceived by the public. An optimal agencies. cycle is estimated to be four times less expensive than delaying treatments In its first biennium, the Commission until failures occur. would have five major responsibilities to establish: Given the lack of clear responsibil- 1. A common chart of accounts. ity and the complexity of determin- This would determine the current ing actual needs, it would be unfair to revenues, expenditures and facility blame elected officials for the failure conditions by city, county and state to maintain the state's transportation transportation agencies. This system infrastructure. Instead, the system itself of accounts should enable easy needs thorough examination, assess- comparisons across the system. This ment and, ultimately, changes. Utilities data will be the foundation for all have demonstrated how this can be further work by the Commission. done with the Public Utility Commission, 2. A system-wide revenue requirement and transportation facilities fundamen- estimate. This estimate would tally provide public services just like a be divided by jurisdictions. The 4