Lawrence city commissioners got a rather shocking report last week on the condition of the city’s streets.

During a meeting to formulate the city’s budget, Public Works Director Chuck Soules told commissioners that inspections by his department indicated that $19.2 million in maintenance is needed – and needed relatively quickly – to prevent streets from deteriorating to the point that they will have to be completely rebuilt.

This is not good news to commissioners who have repeatedly expressed their desire not to increase the city’s property tax mill levy to fund next year’s budget.

The city usually budgets about $3 million a year for street maintenance, which is unlikely to make much of a dent in the needed work. That means the city must look elsewhere for money.

Many residents probably would suggest that city commissioners re-examine some of the street projects they’ve already approved – such as the ever-popular roundabouts and traffic-calming circles – and perhaps consider redirecting some of that money to basic maintenance. Another proposal that has some merit is to consider lowering the city’s fund balances and using some of that money to catch up on repairs.

The balance in the city’s general fund for the current year was about $13 million, or about 31 percent of the general fund budget. That’s a very high percentage; Commissioner Mike Rundle said at the meeting that most governments sought balances of about 15 percent.

He added that, had the city spent some of that money on road maintenance in past years rather than salting it away, it might not be in its current predicament.

That makes a lot of sense. It’s a lot more fun, and in some ways more satisfying, to spend money on new projects rather than on maintenance, but failing to take care of existing infrastructure is an expensive decision when structures reach a certain stage of disrepair.

Using some of the fund balance to catch up on road maintenance may be a good idea, but commissioners must remember they can only do that once. Whatever they pay for with the extra fund balance this year would have to be funded from another source the next time around. For that reason, using that money as a one-time catch-up on maintenance probably makes more sense than using it for an ongoing program, such as services for the homeless.

It’s always good to have a little something in reserve, but if reducing the fund balance, within reasonable levels, can help the city avoid a tax increase or expensive remediation for overdue road maintenance, it may be a smart move.