New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
COE Road Fund Efficiency Review
COE
>
PW
>
Admin
>
Finance
>
Operating
>
2009
>
COE Road Fund Efficiency Review
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2010 12:54:13 PM
Creation date
11/18/2008 12:49:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Reports
Fiscal_Year
2001
PW_Division
Maintenance
GL_Fund
131
GL_ORG
9410
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Review Format <br /> Each function reviewed will begin with a description of what it is, what it does and what <br /> j it means to others. This is followed by a comparison to other cities if such a comparison <br /> is valid and available in the data. Cost factors for the function are then outlined and <br /> analyzed including contracting opportunities where they exist. Each section contains a <br /> summary of efficiency opportunities worth pursuing. <br /> i <br /> i <br /> j General Analysis <br /> ~ There are several general observations about road fund operations that should be made <br /> before reviewing individual service areas. <br /> Reliance on State Highway Trust Fund <br /> revenues for most of the road fund budget has ~ <br /> lead historically to allocation of more costs to <br /> the road fund. Other cities don't charge as Salem 67°l0 <br /> much general administrative expense or Boulder 31 <br /> engineering to this fund. Sunnyvale 28% <br /> Vancouver 22% <br /> Eugene 71% <br /> Urban Forestry is usually not charged against <br /> the road fund in other cities. Also, special districts sometimes used to pay for street <br /> lighting, although none of the surveyed cities did so. <br /> <br /> i <br /> All of the surveyed cities used some combination of special sales or real estate taxes or <br /> special assessments to fund the difference between the state shared revenue contribution <br /> shown in the chart and their total costs. <br /> All transportation departments could be more efficient if they were set up as utilities <br /> rather than tax supported functions. A problem facing all transportation departments is <br /> the complicated nature of transportation financing. Citizens seldom know how much <br /> they're paying in transportation taxes and don't know where the money goes. <br /> Utilities such as water and sewer utilities provide a known product for a known price. <br /> Customers are better able to judge the value they receive and the agency providing the <br /> service tends to be more accountable because they have to explain what they've done <br /> with the money they've received and what the 'll do with new revenue before a rate <br /> Y <br /> increase can take place. <br /> Generally efficient operations exist in Eugene; however, it takes a fair amount of <br /> manipulation of the survey data to uncover an "apples to apples" comparison. Merely <br /> looking at the total cost/mile or total cost/capita comparisons puts Eugene in the middle <br /> of the surveyed cities. <br /> 11 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.