Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County begins evaluation of resilient transportation funding options; committee stresses protections, fairness
Summary
Consultants and county staff presented a broad inventory of possible revenue tools to fund resilient transportation needs. Committee members asked for clearer guarantees on how funds would be protected, how distributions would be determined among cities, and for evidence of efficiency before asking voters for new revenue.
Washington County staff and consultants on July 14 presented a framework for evaluating potential long‑term revenue options to fund resilient transportation capital and maintenance needs across the county.
Jordan Henderson, partner at Marina and Company, told the Washington County Coordinating Committee the project’s goal is “to improve the resilience of transportation capital project funding by identifying long term sustainable options that reduce reliance on the general fund.” Henderson outlined a four‑category inventory of revenue sources — taxes on goods and services, taxes on income, property taxes or local assessments, and fees/charges such as franchise fees and system development charges — and proposed a two‑part evaluation: functional criteria (revenue sufficiency, reliability, stability, alignment with policy goals, community impact and fairness) and feasibility criteria (legality under Oregon law, political support, administrative feasibility, and implementability within timelines and systems).
Committee members broadly welcomed a technical evaluation but urged the county to reflect political and local concerns. Mayor Beatty (City of Beaverton) said the framework seemed “in a vacuum” and urged the team to analyze how any countywide measure would compete with city ballot measures and whether a countywide approach would return funds to cities. “How do we make sure in the future if we all agree on a countywide transportation money that it comes back to cities?” Beatty said.
Other mayors and commissioners raised similar concerns: Mayor Wenzel (Forest Grove) asked for protection and codification so funds could not be redirected to general fund uses; Mayor Lou and Mayor Lueb stressed the cumulative tax burden on residents and urged attention to distribution so dollars are not concentrated in a few places; Mayor DeLynn suggested emphasizing “effectivity” — using funds already collected more efficiently before seeking new revenue.
Staff acknowledged those political constraints and said the current phase is intended as a technical narrowing of options; political feasibility would come later. Stephen (county staff) said the county is seeking to build consensus on durable, equitable strategies, and noted the county’s prior successful use of the MSTIP structure as a model for partnership on project selection and distribution.
Next steps: staff and consultants will finalize the evaluation framework, narrow the list to implementable options and return to the committee and local technical advisory groups for guidance before moving to any phase that would require public polling or voter measures.
