Sherwood council reviews draft WCCLS service-area map and funding formula as county readies levy

Sherwood city staff and councilors spent their May 20 work session reviewing draft service-area maps and a proposed funding-allocation formula from Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS), part of a county-led process tied to a replacement local-option levy that would appear on the November ballot if advanced.

The council heard that the county has been covering roughly 60% of WCCLS costs from its general fund while the library levy accounted for about 40%, but the county’s proposed budget and ongoing draws on WCCLS reserves mean that split would flip under the draft plan if approved. Adrienne, the city’s policy-group representative for Sherwood Public Library, told the council, “Sherwood Public Library is a member of Washington County Cooperative Library Services. We're one of 13 member libraries,” and walked members through draft maps, staffing calculations and a proposed per‑FTE funding figure.

Why it matters: the levy, any change in county contributions, and the new allocation method together determine how much money each member library receives. Under the draft formula discussed, Sherwood’s allocation would rise roughly in line with an anticipated increase in the levy rate, while other larger systems such as Beaverton were shown in the consultant materials to face substantial reductions tied to service-area changes. That shift could alter local staffing, collections and how libraries manage materials.

Most important facts first: the county is pursuing a replacement local-option levy (the current five‑year levy was last approved in 2020). Consultants presented polling and a draft hybrid funding model that starts with population, applies bands to determine FTE equivalents, and multiplies by an average per‑FTE amount (the presentation cited about $119,000 per FTE in the first year of the new calculation). Sherwood staff reported the library’s FY budget is about $1.6 million, of which about $1.0 million comes from WCCLS and $561,000 from the city; personnel costs are roughly 89.5% of that budget and Sherwood currently reports about 11.25 FTE.

Councilors pressed for details on county reserves and timeline. Adrienne said WCCLS had been using a reserve balance that is declining and that, based on current projections discussed in the presentation, those reserves would likely be exhausted after FY 2025–26 if the current draw continues. The county’s consultants and staff are conducting multiple rounds of levy polling (one round cited in the presentation, a second round in progress, and a planned third round July 21–Aug. 1), with tentative calendar items including a briefing to the Board of County Commissioners on June 3, stakeholder kickoff June 11, an Aug. 5 presentation on polling results and Aug. 12 final ballot materials filing.

The council also reviewed maps and usage data that the consultant (Marina and Co) produced to redraw service boundaries. The draft map proposed aligning library service areas to voter precinct lines and synthesizing drive‑time, library usage and school-district data. Staff noted the draft slightly changes Sherwood’s service boundary but leaves its estimated population in the same band; Sherwood’s estimated service population on the draft map was roughly 24,000 people based on Portland State University county estimates adjusted to library service areas.

Councilors asked about operational impacts of the draft funding formula and of planned county proposals to centralize some collection purchasing and management. Adrienne summarized the county’s proposal for a centralized collection approach planned for year two of the next levy cycle, saying WCCLS would retain the collection budget and purchase materials centrally while local libraries might still request specific items. Council members raised concerns that centralization could reduce local control over language- and community‑specific materials and that economies of scale savings cited in county materials (a $4 million figure referenced in presentations) hinge on a high degree of centralization.

Governance and voting procedure were clarified: Sherwood and the other member libraries will be asked to provide votes on three items (service boundaries, funding methodology and governance changes). The presentation said that when the county proceeds to a formal decision point each member library’s vote will be advisory to the Board of County Commissioners but that, for the member‑partner recommendation to move forward within the library governance structure, a two‑thirds majority of city partners and of nonprofit partners would be required (the presentation noted that amounts to six cities and two nonprofits in this configuration).

No final policy vote occurred at the Sherwood work session. Council members were told the county has postponed the decision point to September to allow additional analysis and outreach. The materials shown to the council included consultant polling (EMC Research), staffing and per‑FTE calculations, and example allocations under the draft map and formula. Councilors asked for additional data, including dollar-level breakout comparisons of what Sherwood taxpayers pay into the levy versus what the library would receive under the draft allocation.

What comes next: staff said the county will continue polling and present updated materials to commissioners in June and August; a stakeholder meeting is scheduled for June 11; and member libraries are expected to bring votes on the proposals in September. If the county places a replacement levy on the ballot and voters approve it, any new funding would become effective July 2026; if the levy fails, presenters told the council the county may still attempt another ballot measure. The council asked staff to return to the council with additional detail on dollar flows between Sherwood taxpayers and WCCLS allocations and with updated slide decks and polling results as they become available.