Cities and counties tell legislature deferred maintenance is ballooning costs and shrinking capacity
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
City and county officials told a legislative oversight committee that deferred maintenance and construction‑cost inflation are shrinking what local governments can afford; local officials urged protecting shared state highway funding and indexing revenues to hold pace with rising costs.
Local public‑works officials told the Joint Interim Committee on Transportation Oversight that deferred maintenance across city and county road systems is increasing long‑term costs and eroding service.
Rob Interfeld, Transportation Planning Manager for the City of Eugene, said Eugene received about $14 million in state highway fund dollars in FY 2024 and supplements that with a local street bond and local gas taxes; despite that, roughly 22% of Eugene streets are in poor or worse condition. "We have an operating deficit" he said of pavement programs and noted the difference between a mill‑and‑overlay treatment and a full reconstruction can be an order of magnitude in cost.
Mike Russell, Columbia County Public Works Director, said counties rely heavily on state highway funds — more than 70% in Columbia County — and prioritize preservation and operations (he estimated operations/maintenance at ~70% of county road expenditures). Russell emphasized that small preventative measures such as crack sealing or chip seal dramatically extend pavement life and avoid much larger reconstruction costs later.
John Henriksen, Transportation Division Director for Multnomah County, described the county’s unique bridge liabilities — multiple Willamette River crossings — and said limited indexed local revenue leaves the county reacting to failures. He noted the county’s 3¢ local gas tax, set in the mid‑1970s, now produces far less real value and is not indexed to construction cost inflation.
Panelists and legislators repeatedly raised the practical choices governments face as funds are stretched: whether to prioritize safety‑critical structures, maintain preservation schedules that keep assets from failing, or direct scarce dollars to large capital projects. Officials requested continued state support for bridge and pavement preservation programs and suggested indexing or other revenue measures to preserve buying power.
Next steps: Panelists offered to provide additional jurisdiction‑level data and prioritization criteria to the committee.