Washington County studies new general-revenue and transportation funding options; staff to return in October

Ann Ober, a county staff member, told the Washington County Board of Commissioners on July 22 that county staff and consultant Marina and Company are developing two linked analyses: one to identify new general-revenue options (the GROW project) and one to find long-term funding for transportation capital projects (Resilient Transportation Funding Options, or RTFO).

Ober said the work is currently in phase 3 of 5 and that staff will return to the board in October with the highest-scoring options and again in January with a final recommendation. “This is not the only time we’re going to be here. We will be back in October as a team to talk about some next steps. And then in January, you will be receiving the final proposal from Marina,” Ober said.

The consultants presented a long list of possible revenue approaches, grouped broadly into (1) taxes and fees already subject to state or voter limits, (2) charges and local fees, and (3) targeted local options. Tanya Moffitt, a consultant with Marina and Company, said the team has harmonized definitions across the two analyses and is applying a two-part evaluation framework: functional criteria (for example, revenue yield, stability, fairness, alignment with county goals) and feasibility criteria (legal, administrative, implementability and — as a later screen — political support).

The RTFO analysis focuses on funding for previously identified transportation capital shortfalls that the presentation described as “misstep 3 f” and related allocations. Steven Roberts, the county’s Land Use and Transportation Director, said the transportation work is being coordinated with cities and the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) and its technical advisory committee.

Commissioners sought clarity about which options should remain on the table. Several members said they do not want the county to use political capital pursuing broad, statewide tax changes and instead favored options that are implementable locally or in partnership with cities. Commissioners asked staff to make clear which options apply only to unincorporated areas versus countywide measures and whether measures would require voter approval.

Staff noted the analysis will not itself include expensive community polling or public surveys at this stage; those outreach steps would come later and would be prioritized for a narrowed set of options the board identifies as politically feasible. Ober said staff is meeting internally to quantify the dollar goal(s) and to prepare an abbreviated cost estimate of maintaining core services over a 1–3 year horizon versus longer-term needs.

The board did not take formal action; staff was directed to continue evaluating the long list against the stated criteria and to return with recommended options in October and a final package in January.