Sheriff’s office outlines scope and costs of proposed Washington County public safety levy

The Hillsboro School Board received an informational briefing from Washington County law‑enforcement staff about a proposed countywide public safety local option levy, described in the presentation as Measure 34-346, and what the levy would fund if voters approve it.

Jim Wheaton, sheriff’s patrol operations commander, told the board the five‑year levy would fund a broad array of criminal justice and public‑safety services across Washington County, including prosecution, patrol, juvenile services, mental‑health response teams, domestic‑violence support and victim assistance. Wheaton prefaced his comments by noting the presentation was informational and that public employees must limit advocacy remarks.

Wheaton described the levy as a $337 million package over five years and said the proposed levy rate would be 66¢ per $1,000 of assessed value. He used a typical homeowner assessed value of $348,600 as an example and said that under the proposal that homeowner would pay about $19.17 per month (about $230.08 per year). He said the current county‑level public safety levy is 47¢ per $1,000 and the proposed package represents an increase to 66¢; Wheaton stressed that the November ballot question is an up‑or‑down vote on the full package rather than a piecemeal approval of the increase.

Wheaton outlined program areas the levy would support: basic policing (vehicle thefts, break‑ins, graffiti), prosecution (district attorney interface), victim services (domestic violence supports and family justice center resources), juvenile wraparound and diversion services, mental‑health response teams pairing deputies with clinical staff, jail maintenance and staffing, and initiatives targeting illicit drugs and trafficking. He said the sheriff’s office seized about 1.3 million fentanyl pills over the prior three years and that child abuse reports have increased on average about 17% to roughly nine reports per day.

Wheaton described the county’s public‑safety funding as a multi‑legged “stool” consisting of the county general fund, enhanced sheriff patrol districts, federal/state grants and the local option levy; he said the levy would be an important element of that mix. He also noted the county jail is operating below full capacity for a mix of maintenance, staffing and funding reasons and that the county’s mental‑health response teams — pairing a deputy and a clinician — number about six units in the county and are expanding.

Board members asked for clarification about where the levy dollars would go and whether the ballot question is an all‑or‑nothing package; Wheaton reiterated it is a single package vote. Several attendees urged the board and community to study the levy and described both the cost example and the services that could be reduced if the levy failed. No board vote or formal board position was taken during the session; the sheriff’s office staff answered operational questions after the briefing.

Ending: The presentation closed with offers to supply contact information and additional materials; the board did not take action or adopt a position during the meeting.