Maintenance backlog

Submitted by Amanda on Thu, 02/28/2008 - 9:54am.

Next Up at City Council is a service I've been providing on my other blog for over a year. It's a weekly feature that links to the Portland City Council's Agenda and highlights the items I find most interesting, to help citizens understand the issues the Council reviews. Last weekend, I noted a hearing this afternoon to review a Report on Assets.

Andy Dworkin in yesterday's Oregonian gave a summary. He says the Report documents that the tab for deferred maintenance on infrastructure like streets, City buildings, parks, etc., is now $112 million. And that, "For 2008-09, the general fund set-aside for maintenance remains at $1.9 million. That annually renewed fund -- which doesn't cover work by fee-charging bureaus such as water and sewer -- peaked at $7 million in fiscal 2002-03 before budget cuts depleted it."

And, " It's the driving force behind Commissioner Sam Adams' proposed street fee and Mayor Tom Potter's pitch to spend $13 million to help fix aging emergency communications systems, including the one handling 9-1-1 calls.

Although city commissioners have pledged to fix the shortfall for years, it may be getting worse. The $112 million maintenance gap is up from an $83.5 million 2006 shortfall that asset managers estimated last year.

Much of that increase stems from the need to treat water and possibly enclose reservoirs to comply with federal laws, which could cost $20 million to $50 million a year"

Summary: The maintenance shortfall is $112 million and growing, and the most the Council has allocated to address it in recent years is $7 million. This year's payment is $1.8 million.

Community budget hearings are currently in process. These meetings are usually attended by passionate citizens desperately wanting the Council to allocate funding to capital improvement projects and programs needed in neighborhoods. Most participants assume that the City has already taken care of maintaining current services, and that the "budget surplus" is truly extra money that is not needed for regular operations. The Report being presented today proves that is not so.

If citizens help me win a seat on the Portland City Council, I will prioritize paying for basic services within the City's core mission in all 95 neighborhoods. I will consider that principle with every vote, every week.

Amanda's blog
Login or register to post comments

How much city money is spent

Submitted by Steve Rawley on Thu, 02/28/2008 - 3:02pm.

How much city money is spent annually on operations of the streetcar and OHSU's aerial tram? I seem to recall them coming in around $2 million a year combined. I know the streetcar is funded by parking revenue that could otherwise be used for street maintenance. I don't know where the city's tram operating money is coming from, but I assume it could also be used for street maintenance. At any rate, are we actually paying more to operate these two ongoing "transportation" projects, serving a very small, elite population, than we are to maintain all of our other transportation infrastructure combined? Or do I have my numbers wrong? What's your take on this, Amanda, and what will you do about it once elected? (I realize this is the "third rail" -- pun intended -- in Portland Politics, so I appreciate you addressing it frankly.)

The allocation to bridge the

Submitted by Amanda on Fri, 02/29/2008 - 9:34am.

The allocation to bridge the gap is on top of regular funding for transportation infrastructure, Steve. It's not that the City is paying nothing for maintenance, rather that the funding level is inadequate. The annual operating subsidy for the streetcar and tram is more than $2m, but it's very difficult to find out exactly what the numbers are. When I am elected, I will make sure citizens have easy access to understandable information allowing each person to decide whether spending on particular projects is reasonable, or not. Comments in this post discussing the streetcar on my other blog in August indicate the operating subsidy for the streetcar alone is $2.2 million. Some of that is carved out of TriMet's budget, meaning less bus service with added streetcar lines. And this one in July looked at the tram construction costs and operating expenses. The best I was able to find out then was an estimated $239,000 City contribution -- but as noted in that post, I found it impossible to find out exactly which entities pay what. If elected, I will push to fund basic services including infrastructure improvements and maintenance, in all 95 neighborhoods.

Thanks for the

Submitted by Steve Rawley on Fri, 02/29/2008 - 10:39am.

Thanks for the clarification. I knew we had to be spending more than that on transportation; it just wasn't clicking in my brain. Still, the bottom line is that we're spending far more to operate the tram and streetcar line, which do very little to solve any identifiable transportation problem for the masses, than we are to chip away at our deferred infrastructure maintenance that effects everybody in the city. The issue of accessibility of the numbers aside, I see this as a symptom of bad transportation policy priorities. We're subsidizing condo developers and OHSU at the expense of further deferring critical street maintenance. I understand that the approximately $2.3M we're spending on these projects won't fix what ails us. But it would more than double what we're currently spending on it. Is this good transportation policy?

What's done is done. I

Submitted by Amanda on Fri, 02/29/2008 - 11:42am.

What's done is done. I think the important point now is to recognize that these megabuck shiny projects do have ongoing operating expenses, and consider that when deciding whether to go for more of them. My priority will be to fund basic services in all neighborhoods first.

Great answer. Thanks!

Submitted by Steve Rawley on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 9:36pm.

Great answer. Thanks!

Search

Navigation

Syndicate