Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regional Bond Step2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Metro updates WCCC on $88.5M regional-flexible bond proposal and three step-2 allocation options; committees favor option 3
Summary
Metro staff told the Washington County Coordinating Committee on June 9 that updated revenue forecasts allow a proposed $88.5 million regional-flexible fund bond and raise step-2 allocation capacity to about $49 million, and staff outlined three candidate package options for step-2 allocations.
Metro principal transportation planner Grace Cho briefed the Washington County Coordinating Committee on June 9 about refinements to the Regional Flexible Fund Bond proposal for the 2028–2030 cycle and accompanying step-2 competitive allocation options.
Cho said Metro staff’s most recent estimate of regional flexible funds available for the 2028–2030 cycle increased to about $161,000,000, in part because of an unallocated carryover and an increased CMAQ appropriation. She described a proposed new $88,500,000 regional flexible-fund bond to accelerate capital projects; the additional revenues allow Metro to raise step-2 allocation capacity from an initial estimate of $42,000,000 to about $49,000,000.
Cho outlined implementation steps and risks, including the need to secure a federal-to-local fund exchange (because federal flexible funds cannot directly be placed on a local bond market) and to execute multiple intergovernmental agreements before bond proceeds can be issued. She also summarized the public comment process: Metro’s online open house on the bond and step-2 candidate projects produced more than 500 comments, plus 72 comments from a JPAAC public testimony session; the Tualatin Valley Highway candidate project received 56 comments.
On step-2 allocations Metro staff presented three package options: option 1 (about $47.8M) emphasizing technical evaluation scores; option 2 (about $49M) emphasizing alignment with bond capital projects; and option 3 (slightly above $49M) which gives weight to public comment while also including technically strong applications. TPAC and Washington County technical representatives told WCCC they favored option 3 because it incorporates public input and delivers a more balanced distribution across jurisdictions. Mike McCarthy (City of Tualatin/TAC), speaking for Washington County’s TPAC delegates, said option 1 did not provide what Washington County considered a fair share and recommended option 3 or inclusion of one of two Washington County projects that fell just below the option-1 cutoff.
Committee members also asked about including a Clackamas County project (Oregon City) to the package; Metro staff said increasing allocations above the $49M estimate would either draw on carryover (if available) or reduce future-cycle allocations, creating a tradeoff with the '31–'33 cycle. Cho said draft legislative materials (draft resolution, exhibits including conditions of approval and public comment report) were posted for JPAAC review and that staff expects to bring final materials for action in July.
Cho closed by asking the coordinating committees for questions and any direction to inform a staff recommended step-2 package to JPAAC. Several WCCC members said they preferred option 3 and asked representatives to carry that preference to JPAAC.
