Opinion: Editorials & Letters

Lane County officials hadn’t finished counting the ballots in last week’s election, in which Eugene voters approved $36 million in bonds for street repairs. The ink wasn’t dry on Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s $3.1 billion transportation investment plan, which includes a gasoline tax increase whose revenues would be shared with cities. Yet on Wednesday city of Eugene staff members rolled out a plan to raise more money for road maintenance by adding to sewer, stormwater and trash-hauling fees.

Taxpayers deserve a chance to catch their collective breath. The Eugene City Council does not plan to consider the staff proposal until early next year, but even that would be too soon.

The council should get the new bond-funded street repair program well under way, and also wait to see whether additional transportation funds from the state are forthcoming, before seeking more road funds from city residents. Even then, the city’s leaders should bear in mind that people in Eugene are paying quite a lot already to maintain their street network, and that street repairs are not the public’s only priority.

Eugene voters’ approval of Measure 20-145 represents a significant step toward reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance on city streets. The measure allows the city to issue $36 million in bonds over the next five years to finance 32 important street repair projects. The bonds will result in a property tax increase of 61 cents per $1,000 of property value, or $122 a year for the owner of a home with an assessed value of $200,000.

Voters’ willingness to support such a measure in a time of economic turmoil indicates widespread public acknowledgement of the fact that many of Eugene’s streets are in bad shape, and that it makes economic sense to fix them before they get even worse. The point was underlined by the 57-43 margin of approval.

The vote, however, should not be read as a sign that people are ready to spend still more on streets. To the contrary, it’s likely that many voters thought the bond proposal was a preferable alternative to other street repair financing ideas that have been discussed in Eugene, such as a higher city gas tax or various types of fees, and believed that by approving the measure they would be putting those other options back on the shelf. It was just a year ago that city voters repealed a council-approved 3-cent increase in Eugene’s 5-cent-per-gallon gas tax. There are limits to how much people will pay for street repairs, and to how they’ll pay it.

At the same time, there may be a change in a circumstance that has contributed to the growing backlog of street repair projects in Eugene and other cities. State gas tax revenues are shared with cities and counties, providing a primary source of funds for road work. Because the state gas tax has not been increased since 1993, this source of funds has stagnated as costs have climbed. Kulongoski is proposing a 2-cent increase in the tax and in other transportation-related fees, and the new revenues would be shared with local governments.

The state’s inaction is one reason Eugene and other cities have resorted to self-financed street repair programs. Such locally funded efforts are generally poor substitutes for a statewide transportation program. A statewide program allows streets, highways and bridges to be planned, funded and maintained as a comprehensive system rather than as a patchwork of municipal street networks with differing levels of financial support.

A state-funded transportation program also relieves a stubborn problem that afflicts local efforts — the problem of free riders. Nearly everyone in Lane County uses Eugene’s streets, but only city residents will pay property taxes to retire the street improvement bonds. And only Eugene residents would pay the sewer, stormwater and garbage-hauling fees proposed by the city staff.

The bonds approved last week won’t solve all of Eugene’s street-repair problems. The proposal for additional fees stems from a recognition that there’s still a lot of work to be done. But there are political and financial limits to how much can be done at once. Eugene has taken one important step forward, and state action may allow another. That’s progress. The council shouldn’t push for more too soon.