Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding Options topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County launches study of resilient transportation funding amid cuts to MSTIP general‑fund transfers
Summary
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.
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.
