[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6476791,"mediaKeyId","5716820-3dbb66e2688a860aa6805d592138305f","parentId",5716820,"title","Clean Water Services draft rules of procedure reviewed; board seeks first‑amendment training and clearer attendance, comment and emergency rules","audioSeconds",2058,"startMs",8118000,"endMs",10176000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5716820-3dbb66e2688a860aa6805d592138305f&start=8118&end=10176","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5716820-3dbb66e2688a860aa6805d592138305f/thumbnail_8118000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6476791/Washington-County/Oregon/Clean-Water-Services-draft-rules-of-procedure-reviewed-board-seeks-firstamendment-training-and-clearer-attendance-comment-and-emergency-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6476791-c63517f7458fde6772033584258020da/orig.mp4?Expires=1770884381&Signature=IohOEmRsqoQhEbWLltGO1aTiHBfedZ5rlL6D3dMlXNKG-VqCc18m9MrvgkaRaTrn3hbGiayvQB5QyjJNafvxuvXyb18sccEOn~7oqiyjYySRZB4WlAVhnJfG6A99H85Z48dVgG3i2PmhhdVkvGOu7h4u1mqu6k3-NpVyCY0coD9taMAMyePvv3SZTvZNF6xmCLkHJbVVgJaoqIwuicQTJpvSElsed78BWTDe-bCooLayni6KRJsMl4-ds~soYyfQkYFJgzb3GskmBuqUR9FL5vVWRjLoRRiF2JMHfhrspC~uHdYcTNJ1u4khfdzsA0SicyYzkl6NrYOYKPefqXV3zw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington County","date","2025-09-03T14:55:01Z","article","Clean Water Services (CWS) staff presented a revised draft of the utility’s rules of procedure during the Washington County Board of Commissioners’ Sept. 4 roundtable, prompting detailed discussion about attendance expectations, public comment and how the board should handle emergencies and disruptive meetings.

Brad Anderson, who led the review for CWS staff, said the draft (version 2) was revised after the board’s August feedback and that the document highlights in yellow the sections where commissioners had asked for further discussion. “What you see before you is 2 based upon our previous conversation on August 14,” Anderson said.

Commissioners focused first on a proposed attendance policy. Staff provided three models for language — the chair’s proposal, language used by Washington County staff and other models such as Clackamas County’s practice. Several commissioners favored a version that sets a clear expectation to attend regularly while allowing notification if a commissioner must miss a meeting. “I personally like the Clackamas County version myself,” one commissioner said, citing clarity and the habit of notifying the board and county counsel when an absence is anticipated.

Public comment and public‑hearing rules prompted extended debate. Draft language proposes a standard 15‑minute public comment window for general comment periods and a 3‑minute limit per speaker; for public hearings the draft suggests 2 minutes per individual. Commissioners and staff discussed when the board could reasonably shorten or manage hearing testimony if large numbers of people sign up, and whether limiting testimony would affect appeal rights tied to the administrative record. Brad Anderson emphasized that the draft preserves board flexibility to adjust time and procedures by majority vote.

Emergency procedures and virtual meeting contingencies were also discussed. Staff said the draft includes language allowing declared emergencies to be handled consistent with statute and noted the board could adopt a separate policy on emergency declarations later. Commissioners requested clearer procedures for when an on‑site meeting becomes unsafe or when the board should temporarily recess and reconvene virtually.

Members raised free‑speech and public‑meeting concerns and asked for formal training. “There are really good lawyers who spent their entire lives looking at the very narrow issues of the First Amendment,” one commissioner observed, and the board concluded that first‑amendment training for commissioners and staff should come before any final adoption of new rules. Several commissioners asked legal staff to develop brief, practical guidance on profanity, threats, signage, recording and decorum and to propose standard language the presiding officer can use during meetings.

Staff also proposed formatting and clarifying edits — for example clarifying clerks’ duties, aligning a public notice practice with county norms and moving some public comment limitations into the general meeting section so the rules are easier to follow. Clean Water Services staff told the board they will bring the revised rules back for consideration and that an executive session is scheduled to follow the next CWS meeting to address other matters.

Ending: The board directed staff to refine the draft rules, to schedule First Amendment and public‑meeting training for commissioners and relevant staff, and to return with a clear final document and recommended adoption timing for the board’s consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Washington County Board of Commissioners Round Table, 09/04/25","oneSentenceSummary","At the Sept. 4 roundtable the board reviewed a second draft of Clean Water Services’ rules of procedure. Commissioners and staff discussed attendance expectations, public comment limits, emergency declaration language and the need for First Amendment training before adopting new rules.","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},6476795,"County priorities table flags morgue facility, courthouse planning, facilities backlog and staff burnout",908,1428000,2336000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5716820-3dbb66e2688a860aa6805d592138305f&start=1428&end=2336","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5716820-3dbb66e2688a860aa6805d592138305f/thumbnail_1428000.jpg","/articles/6476795/Washington-County/Oregon/County-priorities-table-flags-morgue-facility-courthouse-planning-facilities-backlog-and-staff-burnout","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6476795-3c792bbdfb34ed5c03c3a74c5e65a3a9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770884381&Signature=clAFECUQvfM9WHyrIOYmer4dz3Ps7iirHHtcANHrN3V~2KQO0vQhMU4rAcXzMjmc~GYH0KdMqHWkJDokwMtm8r~5nqY5aqDgvTgzbqYbZYH4u~P2RxA7n~JXEZYLBf4q6H36q44qTx2MkKCyMETAaxBQD91d8OmkC8f-tFJoOeiCCH6D2Ww~kPPj-dvo0FaDExeXBTKYEXae1cJJytV7YBuWKVeaDydBfdrzg3Tgde06ovHWxue8xVGgEZLUccRnYAE~vYoMEQD4FgmwBd6mkNWLz99rmqcJyQpIJMhI~uS45tRAU~ngXvbBgw72euzhhJ3XrqaJ~mN2gXASEF01SQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Washington County commissioners spent a significant portion of their Sept. 4 roundtable reviewing an updated priorities table that staff said will guide board focus through 2025–26, identifying facilities needs, public safety constraints and organizational capacity issues.

The board discussed the county’s capital improvement program (CIP) and a newly emphasized planning line item for “morgue facility solutions.” Staff advised the board that changes in state support for medical examiner services mean the county must now plan and finance a medical‑grade facility to meet local needs. “We do not have a facility within Washington County,” the presenter said. Staff said a study is underway and will return options outlining short‑ and long‑term approaches; operating costs were discussed as a material ongoing expense and commissioners asked staff to follow up with an exact annual operating estimate (one speaker recalled an operational estimate “about a million and a half a year,” but staff said they would confirm that figure).

Commissioners also discussed courthouse planning that relies on state funding and a timetable that staff characterized as driven by the state. The board noted the distinction between jail capacity matters—where the county has supplemented capacity by contracting with Yamhill County—and courthouse planning, which staff said will be subject to state timelines and approvals. “We’re gearing up and this timeline is not necessarily of our own making,” a staff presenter said, advising that the board will need a liaison and ongoing involvement in the plan.

Other items in the priorities table included the facilities condition index/implementation tracking for county‑owned assets, transportation and revenue options, library governance and funding, and the public‑safety and justice (PSJ) persistent problems such as aid and assist commitments and behavioral health capacity. Commissioners repeatedly raised concerns about staff workload and retention. The chair said the adopted budget anticipates spreading mandated services across fewer staff, and warned that this approach is causing burnout and attrition. “We can’t just hope that new revenue options are going to fix it someday,” the chair said.

The board asked staff to return with refined options in October and to present narrower pathways on Oct. 7 for ballot and non‑ballot funding options. Staff emphasized keeping “multiple pathways open” in order to avoid starting over later should one approach prove infeasible.

Ending: Commissioners directed staff to refine the priorities table and present options at the Oct. 7 roundtable and at subsequent meetings so the board can set a clear path into 2026.","At the Sept. 4 roundtable commissioners reviewed an updated county priorities table that highlights facility capital needs including a locally required morgue facility, courthouse planning tied to state funding, jail capacity contracts, and growing concern about staff burnout and service-level strain.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6476800,"Washington County begins FY‑2026 budget planning as ERP transition and new financial policies loom",2003,3916000,5919000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5716820-3dbb66e2688a860aa6805d592138305f&start=3916&end=5919","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5716820-3dbb66e2688a860aa6805d592138305f/thumbnail_3916000.jpg","/articles/6476800/Washington-County/Oregon/Washington-County-begins-FY2026-budget-planning-as-ERP-transition-and-new-financial-policies-loom","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6476800-9104f58664f06a433e1c2b113ea91eb2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770884381&Signature=VImNojLTJE8CvbIog~jIj2m7BKxeIC~cdb7rdSK4El3oe59TYz0Q66J1LtDG8Xpwb3iNS6DFgDMnB16viHXV-vgznf3LRjSmwxqzBJ6ZLFnrS15ywCOlAhQwZ-KxYi~F-ZC9M245ti-jvvRrmEACHcgqv~f4fwqcBYmJANBsNcu9NEiWkxfThwAX9mIK7-sKO9ZdE0Fm3hQ2gYX4sxcmVaI5ittSKRG7Fu2ZjZ3zmEXw7Mb6TAykueZbjh6i5Xz8siCY7YFWSfQ5ZEXPQTZ68EerWWSosCmvwP6c1SXEbPgd-O0PYgR5NufPOvKLOWr4SxdI57bWzaSUh2QN9AI~Uw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Washington County officials on Sept. 4 launched the county’s FY‑2026 budget process, telling the Board of County Commissioners that a major systems change and new financial policies will shape how the county prepares and presents next year’s budget.

The county’s finance team said the new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is scheduled to go live in January 2026 and will change back‑end workflows for budgeting, human resources and procurement. “It is that time of year. We go through this process,” Angie, a finance staff member, said during the roundtable, opening the county’s budget discussion.

The finance presentation described three specific near‑term changes for the board: a one‑time January supplemental to re‑adopt the budget under the new fund and program structure; continued refinements to the county’s publicly facing financial reports including the annual comprehensive financial report (ACFR) and a “popular” financial report (PAFR); and the planned roll‑out of new formal financial policies aligned with Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) best practices. Staff said an investment policy is scheduled for board review in November 2025 and broader financial policy adoption will proceed as part of the annual budget cycle, with final adoption targeted in June 2026.

John Steyer, a finance staff member who will present the budget after‑action summary, said the budget office is building the outreach calendar for next year and carrying forward improvements suggested by the county’s budget committee and “lay” committee members. Staff stressed that members of the public who serve on advisory bodies found earlier information sessions and the budget materials helpful but asked for clearer orientation and more time for Q&A before final votes.

Staff also flagged the workload effects of system changes and personnel turnover. Angie and other presenters noted that key finance staff recently left for family reasons, including the controller and a lead ERP staffer, creating recruitment pressure during a time of heavy implementation work. “This is a challenging timeline,” Angie told commissioners, noting the county has budgeted contingency for ERP costs but still faces a training and utilization challenge across departments.

The presentation covered the supplemental budget cadence the board will use next year. Staff proposed a special January supplemental to adopt the budget under the new accounting structure, followed by a March supplemental and a June supplemental, which together will incorporate department requests, new grants and required adjustments before fiscal year end.

In discussing public engagement, commissioners and staff agreed to continue more proactive outreach to advisory and lay committee members, and to make orientation and amendment procedures clearer. Several board members said earlier budget work showed progress in transparency but asked that the budget committee and public have more time between presentations and final votes.

Staff said improvements to the budget book layout and communications planning are planned and pledged to deliver a draft budget calendar and more detailed roundtable materials in October. The finance team also said it will maintain the county’s commitment to timely audits and reporting while implementing the ERP and updating policies.

Ending: County staff emphasized the presentation was a kickoff: staff will return with a draft budget calendar, fiscal forecast inputs and more detailed proposals for the board’s review over the coming months.","County staff presented a kickoff of the fiscal‑year budget process, highlighting an ERP go‑live in January, a January supplemental to re‑adopt the budget under a new fund structure, planned financial policy adoptions and staffing turnover in the finance team.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Clean Water Services draft rules of procedure reviewed; board seeks first‑amendment training and clearer attendance, comment and emergency rules

County priorities table flags morgue facility, courthouse planning, facilities backlog and staff burnout

Washington County begins FY‑2026 budget planning as ERP transition and new financial policies loom