New Search
Mr. Corey stressed that the Public. Works Department sought to run as efficiently as possible. He pointed <br />out that the department had received national accreditation through the American Public Works <br />Association, after atwo-year effort. He called out efficiencies the department had incorporated into its <br />procedures, such as utilizing thermo-plastic striping for roads and using a liquid de-icer as opposed to <br />gravel. He underscored that maintenance staff was cross-trained in order to improve the efficiency of <br />operating crews. He did not think another million dollars in efficiencies could be found in the department, <br />though the budget would dictate that the department fmd such an efficiency. <br />Continuing, Mr. Corey said the department had cut. costs and eliminated some positions. He thought there <br />could be other activities within the Road Fund that could be supported in other creative ways, like the Lane <br />Regional Air Pollution Authority annual dues had been moved from the Road Fund in the previous <br />budgetary cycle. He suggested other revenue options, such as a Eugene livability fee (ELF) (previously <br />considered by the Budget Subcommittee) or the possibility of street lighting maintenance districts. He also <br />observed that as funding solutions were being considered at the State level, a one cent increase to the State <br />gas tax would net the City of Eugene revenues of approximately $160,000. He pointed out that a one cent <br />increase to the local gas tax would net the City of Eugene $725,000. <br />Mr. Corey noted that one person had asked in the FY05 budget survey how many more times. the <br />committee had to hear about the same transportation issues. He apologized for the repetition and pointed <br />out that these issues would go away once they were resolved or once it had been determined that the City <br />would just not resolve them. <br />1VIs. Taylor asked where the ELF would come from. Mr. Corey replied that it would have to be simple; <br />such as a per residence or household fee. <br />Ms. Taylor asked how this would differ from the Transportation Systems Maintenance Fee (TSMF), which <br />had been enacted and then rescinded. Mr. Corey responded that the TSMF had been based on a premise of <br />calculating bereft based on trip generation. <br />Ms. Taylor opined that aCounty-wide vehicle registration fee would be a favorable move, though she <br />would prefer aCity-wide registration fee. She asked if the latter could provide enough money. Mr. Corey <br />indicated that if there were 50,000 vehicles in the City of Eugene it would cost vehicle owners $6'00 apiece <br />to meet the shortfall. <br />Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Corey his opinion on whether it would be worthwhile for the City to lobby the State <br />to gain permission to enact such a fee. Mr. Corey indicated he would welcome any kind of mechanism that <br />would help to close the funding gap. <br />Mr. McDonald asked if there was a strategy for disposal of the LED lamps. Mr. Corey affirmed that there <br />was such a strategy. <br />Mr. McDonald asked if the Transportation Division had considered using recycled goods in concrete. Mr. <br />Corey affirmed that the division was always looking for opportunities to recycle, but that he was unsure <br />what specifically was used in the concrete mix. Mr. McDonald commented that fly ash was a recycled <br />product that worked well in paving materials. <br />Mr. McDonald asked, regarding efficiencies, if the division had ever looked into privatizing or outsourcing <br />road patching. Mr. Corey said, looking at economies of scale, if there was not a great amount to do it was <br />simpler to have staff do it, though private sector partners were better able to undertake larger projects. <br />MINITTES-Eugene Budget Committee February 7, 2005 Page 9 <br />