Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bend MPO debates directing State Highway Fund dollars to safety; board asks staff for target language and reporting
Summary
Board members discussed whether to set an explicit target (widely discussed at 20%) of SHF/MPO discretionary funds for safety projects versus using a flexible approach with annual pre‑approval and reporting. No formal vote was taken; staff were directed to include target language in the IGA/minutes and return with annual reporting proposals.
A lengthy June 18 discussion at the Bend MPO Policy Board centered on how to allocate State Highway Fund (SHF) discretionary dollars for fiscal years 2028–2030, balancing pavement preservation and safety projects.
Staff presented historical allocations and projected MPO SHF at roughly $582,000 per year. David Abbas, City of Bend director of transportation, said the city’s pavement condition index has dipped: "we went down to a 75 according to the system," and stressed that inflation is raising paving costs and shrinking buying power. Abbas outlined examples of what different funding shares would buy and how preservation and safety trade off in current budgets.
Several board members advocated creating a regular, dedicated allocation for safety—often framed as a 20% target of MPO SHF to be spent on safety‑oriented enhancements such as enhanced crossings, traffic calming and low‑stress bicycle routes. Others cautioned that a hard percentage could box staff in; they favored using a target coupled with board oversight, annual reporting and pre‑approval of projects. Staff agreed to return annually (late calendar year) with proposed project options and a transparent accounting of how MPO funds would be spent.
The board also considered a citizen request that SHF funds be used to support forming a special road district in Deschutes RiverWoods. County staff (Chris Doty) explained SHF rules restrict use on local access roads and that forming a special district or local improvement district requires property owner votes; staff recommended not dedicating SHF to attorney fees for that effort.
Outcome: No binding policy change or percentage was adopted. The board gave direction to staff to draft IGA language and meeting minutes to reflect a general target (discussion identified 20% as a working target), require annual reporting on SHF use, and present proposed project lists for board pre‑approval before the next preservation season.
