Transportation benefit district approved in White Salmon

There remains multiple steps before adoption of any of the revenue-gathering vehicles available to the district. The council is set to consider either absorbing the Transportation Benefit District formally into the duties of the council or establishing a separate entity entirely at the Jan. 18 meeting, and on Feb. 1, will consider whether to adopt a 0.1% sales tax on all goods and services rendered within the city, a vehicle licensing fee of up to $50, the latter of which would be increased incrementally starting with a $20 fee in the first year, or a combination of both.

Any fees or taxes higher than those would need approval of the voters, but that option has not yet been discussed by the council.

Mayor Marla Keether stated that she and staff will consider the possibility of establishing a citizen’s advisory committee to go before council for approval.

Few members from the public voiced their concerns with the idea, including resident Kevin Herman, who expressed the notion that a local government could start out with a small revenue base and continue to expand upon it to “fund pet projects.”

Councilor Jim Ransier disagreed with that line of thought, saying that the revenue collected through a transportation benefit district could only be applied to projects identified within the city’s six-year transportation plan, which is currently undergoing a drafting process by consultants Nelson & Nygaard.

The 2023-2029 transportation plan will soon undergo a public process. City Administrator Troy Rayburn said a survey will be going out to city residents early next year. A tentative timeline for adoption is set for a springtime publication of a draft plan for councilors to adopt later in the summer.

Additional questions were clarified during the discussion. Rayburn said the vehicles exempt from an additional licensing fee include campers, farm tractors, Mopeds, off-road vehicles, private-use single-axle trailers, snowmobiles, and vehicles registered under the international registration plan.

Councilor Patty Fink clarified earlier comments which she was quoted as saying the funds were a “nest egg” for council.

“Perhaps that was a wrong use of the term, but I just want to clarify the intent. What I meant to say is it offers us an opportunity to have match funds for those projects … We can’t just, number one, do anything with it, or use it without having some sort of plan or capital improvement in place,” Fink said.

City Clerk/Treasurer Stephanie Porter added that a council-approved transportation plan can be amended following its adoption.

Keethler cited a repair of Oak Street as an example of a project that could be funded by using the revenue collected through the Transportation Benefit District as matching funds for a grant.

“That’s got a $7 million price tag if we were to really redo that entire street. I’m not saying that this would absolutely mean Oak Street is high on the priority list, but it’s a project that is referenced often.

“I think it gives people context of an amount where even if the match was — usually it’s a small percentage. But that would be an example of a project that we couldn’t pursue even if it was checking a lot of boxes for larger funding,” Keethler said. With the potential for revenue set aside specifically for transportation infrastructure project, “Now we might be able to.”