Washington County launches study of general revenue and transportation funding options to close a $20.5M general‑fund shortfall

Washington County staff presented a two‑track effort to identify and evaluate new revenue sources for the general fund and for resilient transportation capital funding. The Board was briefed on the project scope, draft work plan, and a set of financing possibilities, and staff requested direction and input on priorities and sequencing.

County leadership said the general fund faces a $20,500,000 gap between revenues and expenditures in the current budget cycle and that the county no longer has the general‑fund cushion it used to provide when other funds experienced shortfalls. To address structural needs, staff engaged Marina & Company and internal teams to lead a General Revenue Options (GROW) project. The GROW work plan includes research on revenue alternatives, analysis of implementation viability, creation of a high‑level roadmap, and presentation of recommended strategies for board consideration.

Potential general‑fund options presented to the board included: property tax tools (permanent rate, local option property tax, general‑obligation bonds), creation of special or county service districts, business taxes (e.g., a local business income or gross receipts tax), personal income‑based levies (noting legal complexity), targeted user or franchise fees (including right‑of‑way fees where statute permits), and operational user charges. Staff emphasized the need to research legal authority, fairness/coverage and administrative feasibility for each option.

In parallel, the Department of Land Use and Transportation (LUT) introduced a Resilient Transportation Funding Options project that will focus on capital funding for road operations, maintenance and priority capital improvements. LUT said it will coordinate closely with cities and build a toolkit of feasible funding approaches: state and federal grants, local gas taxes, registration fees, local improvement districts (LIDs), bonds, levies, urban renewal, and other locally controlled mechanisms. Staff also plans to survey cities to capture what tools municipalities use and to avoid duplicative or conflicting approaches.

Board members discussed sequencing, political capital and staff bandwidth. Several commissioners expressed support for advancing both projects, but staff cautioned that elected officials and staff have limited bandwidth and asked for guidance on prioritization and timing. Commissioners asked staff to coordinate closely with cities and the Public Works/transportation technical committees and to assess equity and rate‑payer impacts. Staff noted the legislative environment: a state transportation funding package framework under consideration could materially increase state highway funds to counties if enacted, but final amounts and details remain uncertain.

Draft timeline: staff plans to complete the initial research and present a refined list of viable options by October and to return with more detailed analysis and implementation strategies (including legal and fiscal feasibility) in late fall or winter. Staff asked the board for input on priorities and confirmed they will consult the service‑level assessment and existing capital improvement priorities as they evaluate tradeoffs.

Quotes included the county manager framing the problem as urgent: "We are looking at a $20,500,000 gap between our revenues and expenditures within the general fund," and staff urging coordination: "We are coordinating these two efforts so we can be efficient and provide consistent guidance to the Board and to our city partners."