[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6558235,"mediaKeyId","3274682-451c48bcfd7c74b58204b94c457025ea","parentId",3274682,"title","County legislative update: SB 974A, expected transportation package and ODOT accountability remain active priorities","audioSeconds",835,"startMs",3650000,"endMs",4485000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274682-451c48bcfd7c74b58204b94c457025ea&start=3650&end=4485","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274682-451c48bcfd7c74b58204b94c457025ea/thumbnail_3650000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6558235/Washington-County/Oregon/County-legislative-update-SB-974A-expected-transportation-package-and-ODOT-accountability-remain-active-priorities","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558235-75430ea7f820062f05cbee92ea9e3a18/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178396&Signature=DcWsZmHROH~JKJJ6EhqkBuqLIOwAEFAqaAEykZqlLVasJr8bMhhjGxsktQ481mgy-H1~uZ8xxBIEtt8UUiWSle1qdfZbnrir-5WmxEchTEpV1hRZRI0LZCLqM~-SvqVQQTMsAMvjqxhPutfCMr7RGZD9-ltgxXcUReNz-XyLF~8KsaiNSJ8pQA9aseY1p5lmA4GtB4fO98WNrdoxHq7LDNxJRpbJYH7-AigKq8e6la9yvsRDGGSvyYYw8R-m9tPDZaKs4p7~bdUmzH09jiJmb9EnW6hqeayEnY04E0x4RbX-iyNOdBB6pHwK-bJVPR3o1kKW2qWVRgET7bxqOAs5Ig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington County","date","2025-05-12T03:38:31Z","article","Carly Silva Gabrielson, Washington County Government Relations Manager, briefed the coordinating committee on the state legislative calendar and several bills that could affect local government authority and transportation funding.

Carly said the Legislature is past the first chamber deadline and that the revenue forecast (expected May 14) will influence what the session can fund. She highlighted Senate Bill 974A, which would impose review timelines on local governments for final engineering plans and allow attorney fees to applicants under certain circumstances; the county remains opposed and is working with a coalition to seek amendments. Carly said the bill has been amended several times, that chair attention has produced additional requested changes, and that a public hearing and opportunities for testimony were scheduled.

Carly also said a statewide transportation funding package is still under negotiation and could be released as House Bill 2025. Staff warned that any bill could appear quickly and asked jurisdictions to be prepared to testify at short notice. She noted one Republican House transportation proposal that would avoid new taxes but would cut funding for transit, rail, bike/ped and climate programs; staff flagged reporting that some of the savings in that proposal were overstated.

On accountability, Carly said proposals are likely that would increase ODOT oversight and that additional accountability language may appear both inside the transportation package and in ODOT’s budget. Committee members urged messaging that emphasizes local benefits of any state package — Steven reminded the committee “half of the funds that are generated by this come back to the local jurisdictions.”

Ending: Staff asked member jurisdictions to be ready to provide written and verbal testimony on short notice and offered to circulate hearing notices and suggested points for local testimony.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) - May 12, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Washington County government relations staff briefed the committee on key bills including SB 974A (timelines for final engineering and permitting), the pending statewide transportation funding package, and upcoming ODOT accountability measures. Staff encouraged jurisdictions to provide testimony when hearings are scheduled.","taxTitle","Washington County, Oregon","taxId",2762,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6558240,"Washington County launches study of resilient transportation funding amid cuts to MSTIP general‑fund transfers",1946,1757000,3703000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274682-451c48bcfd7c74b58204b94c457025ea&start=1757&end=3703","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274682-451c48bcfd7c74b58204b94c457025ea/thumbnail_1757000.jpg","/articles/6558240/Washington-County/Oregon/Washington-County-launches-study-of-resilient-transportation-funding-amid-cuts-to-MSTIP-generalfund-transfers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558240-65e94a9bd5b3683f528b1a043a73e90f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178396&Signature=KoP5ZYZ~~wka9XRPDRQKpi1WMQUTpfrt-hhjdfSdxzh2xUg6fQGRxJJH3UMkct9Ev60trXOI-FIdSwQMf7UQEFCAkpa3gQtP9jnMsYLvlFtuT61xZBwmazxLysD52B9N2ljrWBSF1hiJI1njZjMlrrn3LyUj-yAmvx9d9xy8af3YpTr-RHhFLj0pZnc7xEVFEbiziYFkEwm9Bj6eog8xESnmIl2xx3j7UBdwRWF-1n~Z6FtNAiZOUunW5qEFf9uzEeXyc2skKgPF6MuTE4Lv4abIiXIVzqCQ6ZUawJ0nUzxl4EoMzdGSFa5FkuCH3-B25ozru-rxMGW7RcmUdI5clg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Washington County staff told the WCCC on May 19 they have launched a project to identify “resilient transportation funding options” after recent reductions in the county general fund transfers that historically supported the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP).

Steven (county staff) and Jessica Peltz (project manager) presented the scope and schedule. Jessica described the work plan: compile potential funding and financing tools, assess implementation viability (including statutory and administrative constraints), build leadership consensus on a mix of options, and obtain board direction for implementation. She said staff will circulate a public survey this month, perform research with a consultant, and return to WCCC and the WCCC Technical Advisory Committee with preliminary options in July and a refined list by October 2025.

Why it matters: The county has relied on regular general‑fund transfers to MSTIP since the 1990s; budget pressures and lower property tax growth have reduced those transfers. Jessica told the committee the FY25–26 proposed budget included a headline reduction described as 17%, but after assessed‑valuation adjustments that reduction translates to a smaller year‑over‑year decrease (about 11.4% as described by staff). The county is exploring alternatives including bonding, voter‑approved local option levies or bonds, local gas‑tax increases, vehicle registration fees, system development charges, tax increment/urban renewal, and other local revenue mechanisms.

Presenters noted recent board actions: the board approved bonding up to $150,000,000 for certain MSTIP projects and approved a $250,000,000 MSTIP 3f funding allocation. Jessica said the county will evaluate which tools are practical for Washington County and which require coordination with cities or state action.

Committee members offered examples and cautions. Mayor DeLynn said her city adopted a local option gas tax and then later put a 1¢ local gas tax to voters; she warned about equity concerns because lower‑income households may pay a higher share of costs. Mayor Bubenick described a successful $20 million voter‑approved bond used to accelerate local projects. Councilor Rosenthal urged caution on payroll taxes and asked how to integrate any forthcoming state transportation package into local evaluation. Several members recommended urban renewal (TIF) and street‑maintenance fees as tools some cities use effectively.

Staff sought feedback on which revenue options jurisdictions have used successfully, which to avoid, and obstacles to implementation. Jessica said the county will evaluate feasibility and return with a recommended slate of implementable options for board consideration in late 2025 or early 2026.

Ending: The committee encouraged interjurisdictional coordination and for staff to circulate the planned survey. No formal vote was taken on funding options at this meeting.","County staff outlined a study to identify long‑term funding and financing options for transportation capital projects after recent reductions in general‑fund transfers to MSTIP. The study will produce a list of implementable options and a public survey; staff expects to return to the committee in July and again in October 2025.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6558245,"WCCC approves RFFA step‑2 comment letter endorsing county projects, members call for separate letter on Metro prioritization",1181,559000,1740000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274682-451c48bcfd7c74b58204b94c457025ea&start=559&end=1740","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274682-451c48bcfd7c74b58204b94c457025ea/thumbnail_559000.jpg","/articles/6558245/Washington-County/Oregon/WCCC-approves-RFFA-step2-comment-letter-endorsing-county-projects-members-call-for-separate-letter-on-Metro-prioritization","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558245-2ad303766fd8570ad5726f574ce9cf28/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178396&Signature=ANdCxOWw-IoWQ2hnGyQEA413KLYHd-CGfjymv~xTkgjYPVJ7nM~Lh8cTV5Nht9pzp8--fhM2v4xpXZqWxH-vEGSUs2cW59cY4T305TDYWGja1h6M2SShmlz3Z98rSUG597Rw0hkrs4EEVfjklHYEXETBNCZreSmAPCu5iquNOvV0-tjZAnRzBIc-0WuFImjdv0CiPgEjWHSdeSNiRAiePeuR8vm7WZEy41ya5z2gVku~NSEGVMJh6mEamOlCFs4M3QdNypmhoj7Ns9N0uf5KlNxJ0jcLpIRJlbJcFdjtMeyxKx7bphzBBnaxBSmG5br2LDlqYYCCzxhyJhBL7zujyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Washington County Coordinating Committee on May 19 voted to send Metro a formal comment letter endorsing all of the county jurisdictions’ projects submitted to the Regional Flexible Fund Allocation (RFFA) step‑2 process and directed staff to prepare a second letter with suggested changes to Metro’s prioritization and public‑input process.

Committee staff member Steven (last name not specified) presented a draft letter and said, “We’ve traditionally taken the approach of not attempting to subregionally prioritize projects, and really just putting forward all of the proposed projects from the Washington County jurisdictions.” The committee then discussed whether to send only that letter or to add process feedback as well.

Why it matters: Metro’s step‑2 RFFA outcomes determine which regionally eligible projects advance for potential funding. Several jurisdictions on the committee said Metro’s current “above the line/below the line” framing and scoring do not appear to reflect the volume or quality of community comment on some projects, and they urged stronger recognition of public input and clearer, earlier engagement on evaluation criteria.

Committee members from Tigard, Sherwood and other cities described mobilizing community comment that, in their view, did not change Metro’s initial placement of projects. Mayor Lou of Tigard said staff had “70 individuals make comments” on Tigard’s proposal and that it felt discouraging if that input had no effect. Mayor Loub (title: mayor) and several other members suggested the county and cities should send a second, separate letter proposing process changes, including earlier committee engagement on criteria and a clearer way to account for community involvement in scoring.

After discussion, Mayor O’Neil moved to approve the draft comment letter endorsing the county jurisdictions’ proposed projects. Mayor Kirk seconded the motion. Committee members voted in favor and the motion passed by voice/hand vote.

The committee directed staff to draft a second letter for later submission that would: (1) request earlier engagement with Metro staff and coordinating committees on the evaluation rubric; (2) ask Metro to increase transparency on how public comment and “community involvement” factors into scoring; and (3) seek approaches to preserve regional equity across counties in Metro’s selections.

What happened next: Committee staff (Steven) said they would submit the approved endorsement letter to Metro and circulate a draft of the suggested process‑change letter to member jurisdictions for review before sending.

Votes at a glance: The packet recorded three formal, procedural votes during the meeting (see actions array). The RFFA comment letter was approved by voice/hand vote; the committee recorded no roll‑call tally numbers in the minutes for that motion.

Ending: The committee framed the endorsement as consistent with past practice — advancing all county projects as “qualified” — while committing to follow up with a second, process‑focused letter to Metro.","The Washington County Coordinating Committee voted to submit a comment letter to Metro endorsing all county‑jurisdiction projects for the RFFA step‑2 list and agreed to draft a second letter urging changes to Metro’s prioritization and public‑input weighting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County legislative update: SB 974A, expected transportation package and ODOT accountability remain active priorities

Washington County launches study of resilient transportation funding amid cuts to MSTIP general‑fund transfers

WCCC approves RFFA step‑2 comment letter endorsing county projects, members call for separate letter on Metro prioritization