Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rffa Prioritization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
WCCC approves RFFA step‑2 comment letter endorsing county projects, members call for separate letter on Metro prioritization
Summary
The Washington County Coordinating Committee voted to submit a comment letter to Metro endorsing all county‑jurisdiction projects for the RFFA step‑2 list and agreed to draft a second letter urging changes to Metro’s prioritization and public‑input weighting.
The Washington County Coordinating Committee on May 19 voted to send Metro a formal comment letter endorsing all of the county jurisdictions’ projects submitted to the Regional Flexible Fund Allocation (RFFA) step‑2 process and directed staff to prepare a second letter with suggested changes to Metro’s prioritization and public‑input process.
Committee staff member Steven (last name not specified) presented a draft letter and said, “We’ve traditionally taken the approach of not attempting to subregionally prioritize projects, and really just putting forward all of the proposed projects from the Washington County jurisdictions.” The committee then discussed whether to send only that letter or to add process feedback as well.
Why it matters: Metro’s step‑2 RFFA outcomes determine which regionally eligible projects advance for potential funding. Several jurisdictions on the committee said Metro’s current “above the line/below the line” framing and scoring do not appear to reflect the volume or quality of community comment on some projects, and they urged stronger recognition of public input and clearer, earlier engagement on evaluation criteria.
Committee members from Tigard, Sherwood and other cities described mobilizing community comment that, in their view, did not change Metro’s initial placement of projects. Mayor Lou of Tigard said staff had “70 individuals make comments” on Tigard’s proposal and that it felt discouraging if that input had no effect. Mayor Loub (title: mayor) and several other members suggested the county and cities should send a second, separate letter proposing process changes, including earlier committee engagement on criteria and a clearer way to account for community involvement in scoring.
After discussion, Mayor O’Neil moved to approve the draft comment letter endorsing the county jurisdictions’ proposed projects. Mayor Kirk seconded the motion. Committee members voted in favor and the motion passed by voice/hand vote.
The committee directed staff to draft a second letter for later submission that would: (1) request earlier engagement with Metro staff and coordinating committees on the evaluation rubric; (2) ask Metro to increase transparency on how public comment and “community involvement” factors into scoring; and (3) seek approaches to preserve regional equity across counties in Metro’s selections.
What happened next: Committee staff (Steven) said they would submit the approved endorsement letter to Metro and circulate a draft of the suggested process‑change letter to member jurisdictions for review before sending.
Votes at a glance: The packet recorded three formal, procedural votes during the meeting (see actions array). The RFFA comment letter was approved by voice/hand vote; the committee recorded no roll‑call tally numbers in the minutes for that motion.
Ending: The committee framed the endorsement as consistent with past practice — advancing all county projects as “qualified” — while committing to follow up with a second, process‑focused letter to Metro.
