[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6550247,"mediaKeyId","5401285-db94e59074c51aed0faee1f6c5462175","parentId",5401285,"title","Government‑relations team briefs Washington County on 2025 legislative outcomes; mixed results on funding and policy","audioSeconds",1218,"startMs",6074000,"endMs",7292000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5401285-db94e59074c51aed0faee1f6c5462175&start=6074&end=7292","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5401285-db94e59074c51aed0faee1f6c5462175/thumbnail_6074000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6550247/Washington-County/Oregon/Governmentrelations-team-briefs-Washington-County-on-2025-legislative-outcomes-mixed-results-on-funding-and-policy","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6550247-b32d9e437ccce1b6306880a1bfe15577/orig.mp4?Expires=1774890989&Signature=mb-EBoLhD8CRAMe2gsjxV9nCEDtWZqW7gEVU5ufSDCF4nDFJmJKRDDpClKQB-RdAxUBTJP5MJCl8bdZRbaePaj5j0rxw~4IZ8aBMqGgCf-UuxE82hJ5QlRGZt5KjnEBIl1blR4YqxBgVxPZHQ1OUTemUMY9X-jrXxWIzvaBtxsLctqkR3wcicL1ci0EdFhvUN959qVPQ07PwDXe9Gijd1d9AjvOt8I6kV52wjrtLV72xeQxbgLJthz6scBy~w5YqVJ2yhzjsHlEBk1~BarSTRuZZCL8OEZxN4NmV2C6TyvwfS1vAkrsK5G6Xo6wbNVA3Rm4LgjDUAJvOu01affCbHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington County","date","2025-07-16T12:56:37Z","article","Washington County’s government‑relations team delivered a mid‑session wrap‑up to the Board of Commissioners on July 15 that summarized the outcomes of the 2025 Oregon legislative session, highlighting both funding wins and significant shortfalls.

The county team said some priorities advanced while other asks were reduced or unfunded amid a tight statewide revenue forecast. Presenters credited close collaboration with county legislators and regional partners but warned there are remaining gaps the county will work to address in the interim and in the next legislative cycle.

What passed and notable outcomes

- Courthouse planning: County advocates secured $1,250,000 in legislative funding toward courthouse planning and related needs. The bill had not yet been signed by the governor at the time of the presentation but presenters expected it to become law if not vetoed.
- Juvenile crime prevention/diversion: Funding was approved at the requested level ($23.4 million statewide), a win for locally administered juvenile programs.
- Water reuse and resource recovery: House Bill 2169 (water reuse coordination and a DEQ coordinator position) passed; the legislature also provided funding to continue a DEQ water reuse coordinator position.
- Behavioral health and deflection: SB 610 (shifting certain behavioral‑health resource decisions to the Oregon Health Authority and clarifying appeals) was enacted with an operative date of Jan. 1, 2026; the Criminal Justice Commission received a multi‑million dollar appropriation for behavioral health deflection grants but below the county’s requested amount.

Shortfalls and bills that did not reach requested levels

- Community corrections: The legislature funded community corrections at $279 million statewide while an estimate of need was higher; county presenters said that gap translates into an approximate $2.4 million shortfall to Washington County annually for the next biennium, and staff said they plan to pursue supplemental funding through the Emergency Board or the short session.
- Affordable housing preservation and acquisition funding: A statewide housing preservation ask was funded at about $52.5 million, well below the county coalition’s original $205.2 million request.
- Transportation: A proposed comprehensive transportation package (House Bill 2025) failed to gain final majority support by sine die; the county team said that could lead to a smaller stopgap proposal or a special session to address road and transit funding.

Other policy and fiscal notes

- Workforce/licensure: Several licensure compact bills aimed at easing workforce shortages did not pass; the governor vetoed at least one compact bill that reached the desk.
- System development charges and middle‑housing rules: HB 2138 (middle housing) passed and will require rulemaking; the bill also triggers work on model system development charges that the county will monitor for implementation impacts.
- DEQ and water infrastructure: The legislature preserved current service levels for the Department of Environmental Quality and funded positions to stabilize permitting work; the team flagged that statewide capacity affects permitting timelines that in turn affect local housing and infrastructure projects.
- PFAS and emerging contaminants: HB 2947 (a study and state support for PFAS in land‑applied biosolids) passed; the bill funds Oregon State University to study PFAS in soils that received biosolids.

Why it matters: county programs and budgets

Presenters emphasized that many local operations are sensitive to state funding levels and statutory changes. Shortfalls in community corrections and law library funding were called out as directly affecting county services and staffing. The team said they will pursue follow‑up advocacy, including letters to the county’s legislative delegation and possible Emergency Board requests to address significant funding gaps.

Speakers and presenters

- Boyle — senior government relations manager, Washington County (contracted with Clean Water Services) — opened the wrap‑up and framed the session timeline.
- Carly Silva Gabrielson — government relations (presenter on housing and preservation outcomes).
- Pablo Nieves Valenzuela, Zacher Khan and Tracy Rainey — government‑relations staff and Clean Water Services representatives who presented funding and policy details across behavioral health, water infrastructure, transportation, housing and DEQ matters.
- Gwen Baldwin — contract lobbyist who assisted during the session and was acknowledged for rapid support.

Next steps

The government‑relations team said it will: (1) follow up with the county delegation to explain local impacts (the team recommended a board letter); (2) continue interim advocacy and rule‑making engagement on newly enacted bills (DEQ, DLCD, HBA and others); (3) plan a smaller, targeted 2026 agenda that reflects lessons learned; and (4) track possible special‑session or Emergency Board opportunities to fill immediate funding gaps.

Provenance and timing

The presentation comprised a multi‑department briefing during the July 15 work session. Presenters noted that several bills must still be signed by the governor or will become law by passive enactment after the 30‑day signature window; the county’s legal and policy team will monitor implementation rulemaking and funding availability.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to return with a follow‑up outreach plan to the county’s legislative delegation that lays out funding shortfalls and operational impacts ahead of interim and 2026 planning.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Washington County Board of Commissioners PM Work Session 07/15/25","oneSentenceSummary","Washington County’s government‑relations team delivered a mid‑session wrap‑up to the Board of Commissioners on July 15 that summarized the outcomes of the 2025 Oregon legislative session, highlighting both funding wins and significant shortfalls.","taxTitle","Washington County, Oregon","taxId",2762,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6550252,"Washington County advances working draft of 'access and opportunity' resolution; sends version for legal review",4584,410000,4994000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5401285-db94e59074c51aed0faee1f6c5462175&start=410&end=4994","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5401285-db94e59074c51aed0faee1f6c5462175/thumbnail_410000.jpg","/articles/6550252/Washington-County/Oregon/Washington-County-advances-working-draft-of-access-and-opportunity-resolution-sends-version-for-legal-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6550252-b11a6ffde35b851c37eabef662c98900/orig.mp4?Expires=1774890989&Signature=mkzPDn8sRV88hBVP~8TtVVVg11M~VM1gbdWAjlG0-kk4QDJbeVaPYuiYX-7UD5YMMTOHn0MU4BkX38TfsuhDJscRZl07EOV6hXdXmlMYMXZcUXmqiO6E4vtVQhlO9-7jQFGu4dftmyZo8VpheyGep~Q1Q5i7Ud1eekyfY-PKF8uIVXcO8f8fbol~mED3wGYjR63B69rj9-yuPBKXgIjhlNpUQz5qLZF2dN2t9pot~zGLMJK-lvVWq8BzBdnr0vg9FrHpeMr66LGmrfZJ9A924PSYxSvqCrX1rCcTCkHq6~Z8~KAl~WVDZrfkcJA0qDIHl3M2pwRKyEx7ylUqbh2UOg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Washington County Board of Commissioners reviewed and refined a working draft of a resolution and order on federal contracts and an “access and opportunity” framework during a July 15 work session, directing staff to produce a redlined version, circulate an updated packet and send a subsequent draft for county legal review ahead of consideration next week.

The discussion centered on staff outreach and survey results, draft language changes requested by ACRE (the county’s advisory group on racial equity and community engagement), and whether the resolution should include specific protected characteristics and an accountability mechanism. County Administrator Angie said staff would prepare a red-line and a version that shows comment authorship and asked consultants Jonelle Bell and Lucy Hammer to present the outreach findings. “I would suggest that Jonelle Bell and Lucy Hammer start the presentation,” Administrator Angie said.

Consultant Lucy Hammer summarized results from a July 7 employee listening session, an in‑progress employee survey (55 initial responses) and an early community-based organization survey (15 respondents representing three CBOs). Hammer said staff heard persistent uncertainty among employees and CBO partners about what language is permissible and how federal executive orders affect contracts and grant eligibility. “Say what needs to be said. They don't want to see the language overly sanitized,” Hammer said, describing staff feedback that the draft should be direct rather than vague.

Why it matters: county staff and community partners reported that communication gaps amid a pause on signing federal grants and contracts have increased anxiety and operational uncertainty. Commissioners and staff said a clear county position and frequent, consistent messaging are needed so CBOs and residents are not left guessing whether services or contracts will change.

Key points from staff and CBO outreach

- Employee listening session: 39 participants; comments emphasized emotional labor, internal mistrust, and requests for more internal channels (FAQs, regular listening sessions) and faster public messaging.
- Employee survey (preliminary, 55 responses): 45% reported negative impacts to operations or morale from federal executive orders; 47% said they see conflict between executive orders and state statutes or county policy; responses on the resolution were split, with roughly 40–50% supporting a civil‑rights‑centered resolution that maintains equity work.
- CBO survey (preliminary, 15 respondents representing three organizations): 100% reported they had been notified of a federal funding change (delay or elimination); the majority said delays would have severe impacts on operations and expressed a need for timely, transparent communications.

Draft language and board debate

Consultants and ACRE proposed additions that would (a) change earlier wording from “concepts” to “principles,” (b) insert “fairness” alongside “equality” in whereas clauses, and (c) include examples of protected categories. The draft referenced federal civil‑rights statutes — the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 — and an example citation to the Oregon Revised Statutes chapter 659. Commissioners debated the inclusion of the word “identity” in definitions of access and opportunity; several said they preferred deferring that specific insertion to county counsel’s legal review.

Board direction and next steps

Board members agreed verbally to a versioning plan: treat the July 8 packet as version 1, label the July 15 working draft version 2, produce a version 3 incorporating today’s comments to go to legal review, and aim for a version 4 in the published packet for the board meeting next Tuesday. Staff and consultants will produce a redlined document showing comment authorship. The board also asked that any recommended language be reviewed by county legal counsel before publication. There was no formal roll‑call vote recorded on the resolution during the work session.

ACRE representation and accountability request

Barry Dunn Smith, speaking as an ACRE representative, said ACRE members endorsed language that would make the resolution durable and asked for measures that would allow the community to see how the county implements any new framework. “We want to make sure there is some accountability because even though there is intent, there needs to be measures of accountability to build trust,” Barry Dunn Smith said.

What the draft would direct (as discussed)

- Direct the county administrator to implement an access and opportunity framework across county operations (the draft language proposed doing so; commissioners discussed whether the phrase should include a focus on the “most vulnerable and underserved”).
- Engage in consistent outreach with community partners (the board asked that the text be written so it does not imply an unreasonable staff workload and to clarify the county‑level role in any collaborative response).
- Ensure public dollars are spent in compliance with federal, state and local laws (the draft lists statutes as examples and notes the list is not exhaustive).

Clarifying details from the meeting

- Listening session date: July 7 (39 participants).
- Employee survey: preliminary 55 responses; results still being collected; final tally expected at the end of the week.
- CBO survey: preliminary results show 15 respondents representing three organizations; survey still open.
- Timeline: staff will try to publish a packet update before the Thursday publication deadline; legal review is required before final publication for the Tuesday meeting.

Speakers (selected)

- Angie — County Administrator (identified in the meeting as “Administrator Angie”).
- Lucy Hammer — consultant (Esposito); presented listening session and survey findings.
- Jonelle Bell — consultant (presenter role assigned by Administrator Angie).
- Barry Dunn Smith — ACRE representative (spoke on ACRE recommendations).
- Chair Harrington — Washington County Board of Commissioners (presiding officer during the work session).

Authorities referenced in discussion

- Civil Rights Act of 1964 (referenced by consultants/ACRE as an example statute).
- Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
- Americans with Disabilities Act.
- Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
- Oregon Revised Statutes, chapter 659 (cited in draft language as an example of state civil‑rights law).

Ending: The board did not take a final vote on the draft. Commissioners agreed to send a version incorporating today’s comments to legal review and to aim to publish a revised packet for consideration at the next regular meeting. If legal review requires further changes and the packet cannot be finalized by the Thursday publication deadline, staff planned to publish the working draft available at the earliest possible publication cycle.","At a July work session the Washington County Board of Commissioners reviewed a working draft of a resolution and order about federal contracts and an 'access and opportunity' framework, directed staff to produce redlines and a legal-reviewed packet version, and heard staff and CBO survey results and ACRE comments. No formal vote was recorded.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Government‑relations team briefs Washington County on 2025 legislative outcomes; mixed results on funding and policy

Washington County advances working draft of 'access and opportunity' resolution; sends version for legal review