The Washington County Budget Committee voted unanimously to approve the fiscal year 2025'26 budget for the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District (ESPD), adopting a $57,552,109 spending plan and a permanent property tax rate of $0.6365 per $1,000 of assessed value.

The ESPD funds law enforcement in the county's urban unincorporated areas. Sheriff Caprice Massey and Undersheriff John Cook told the committee the district covers densely populated neighborhoods outside city limits and supplements general‑fund policing by underwriting patrols, training and specialized teams.

Sheriff Caprice Massey, Washington County Sheriff, said the ESPD "includes more densely populated areas that lie outside the cities and demand more police services than rural areas," and noted the district has had continuous voter approval since its formation in 1987. She told the committee the current levy was renewed by voters in May 2022 and runs through 2028.

Undersheriff John Cook described the county accounting for ESPD revenue: "When the taxes are collected, they come into the sheriff's office, it comes over to Fund 182," and said ESPD contributions are part of a mix of funding that supports patrol operations. Cook testified that ESPD funds nearly 60% of the sheriff's patrol operations and that the sheriff's office's overall budget request is about $188 million, of which roughly $43 million supports district patrol.

Why it matters: the ESPD budget pays for 9-1-1 response, crisis‑intervention and deescalation training, interagency narcotics work, a community violence reduction team, and programs to connect people experiencing homelessness to services. Committee members repeatedly framed the vote as a way to preserve response times and specialized services in the unincorporated urban areas that the district covers, including Aloha, Bull Mountain, Cedar Mill, Cooper Mountain, Metzger and Raleigh Hills.

Presentation and data: Sheriff Massey and Undersheriff Cook said the ESPD helps ensure faster emergency response times and funds training in crisis intervention. The presenters cited enforcement statistics from interagency narcotics operations: in 2024 the Westside Interagency Narcotics Team seized more than 4,000 pounds of heroin, more than 600 pounds of methamphetamine and about 16 pounds of cocaine; they also reported about 25,000 seized fentanyl pills in 2024 and roughly 1,390,000 fentanyl pills seized over the prior three years.

Discussion highlights: committee members asked about how ESPD vehicles are procured and whether accounting practices differ from other county fleets; Undersheriff Cook explained vehicle purchases run through the county's fleet replacement program and that upfitting costs vary depending on funding source. Commissioners and committee members also discussed staffing levels: speakers noted the county's urban unincorporated service level goal of about 1.08 officers per 1,000 residents in ESPD areas while saying that the national average for municipal agencies is higher. Several members raised concern that general‑fund constraints are shifting more of the public safety burden onto special levies such as ESPD.

Committee action: Budget committee member Anthony Mills moved to approve the ESPD budget and levy; the motion received a second and passed on a unanimous voice vote. The committee did not record a roll‑call vote showing individual yes/no tallies in the public record of the meeting.

Fiscal clarifications: Undersheriff Cook and other staff said the presented Fund 182 figures show a 12% budget request increase from the prior year for ESPD, driven primarily by personnel costs, increases in indirect/interdepartmental charges and vehicle purchases or replacements. Presenters reiterated the sheriff's office practice of returning year‑end surpluses to the parent fund (Fund 210) when possible to help stabilize future rates.

Public comment and oversight: one Zoom speaker representing a community organization thanked the presenters and expressed support for training and the ESPD model. Several committee members asked for additional detail on staffing and long‑term trends in the general fund versus levy funding, and those concerns were recorded during discussion but did not alter the budget action.

The committee adjourned the ESPD portion of its agenda and moved on to the Urban Road Maintenance District presentation and vote later in the same meeting.