Washington County advances working draft of access-and-opportunity resolution as federal grant terms put $135 million at risk

WASHINGTON COUNTY, Ore. — Washington County commissioners and county staff reviewed a working draft of an "access and opportunity" resolution on July 8 and agreed to continue rapid outreach and legal review after consultants warned that about $135,000,000 in federal funding is effectively on hold while the county determines a path forward.

The working draft, prepared with consultant Espousal Strategies, is intended to reaffirm the county's commitment to nondiscrimination while aligning county policies and contracts with current federal guidance and executive orders. Jonelle Bell and Lucy Hamer of Espousal Strategies presented the timeline and community engagement plan; County Administrator Tanya (last name not specified in transcript) and assistant county administrator Marnie Kyle explained how the pause on some attestations is affecting contracts and community partners.

"That $135,000,000 of funding annually is essentially on hold while we determine this path forward," Lucy Hamer said during the presentation, describing the urgency behind the outreach and drafting work.

Why it matters

County staff told commissioners the draft resolution is intended to let Washington County accept federal grants and contracts while meeting federal attestation requirements and complying with civil-rights and nondiscrimination laws. Several large programs — including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) submissions and Continuum of Care (CoC) grants — are in active renewal or review cycles this month and next, and staff warned that missing federal deadlines could interrupt funding to community-based organizations and county services.

What the board reviewed and discussed

The working draft presented definitions of "access" and "opportunity," cited federal nondiscrimination authorities, and included a proposed directive to staff: "Direct the county administrator to conduct proactive programmatic reviews twice a year to ensure compliance with federal and state nondiscrimination laws." The draft was explicitly labeled a first working version and noted as not yet through full legal review.

County Administrator Tanya told the board the county had paused signing new federal grants and attestations on June 17 while the county determines which compliance steps it must put in place. "We would be pausing signing new federal grants or contracts until we could determine what compliance steps we could put in place," she said.

Assistant County Administrator Marnie Kyle and staff provided a contract-level view: the county relies on roughly $135 million in annual federal funds, about 90% received via direct federal contracts and about 10% passed through other agencies. Some awards and program lines remain unchanged for now — notably, staff said, the Housing Choice Voucher program operates as a direct federal appropriation and continues to be reimbursed monthly — but staff cautioned that federal agencies (for example HUD) could issue new program guidance that would affect eligibility or attestation language.

"We now clearly understand that at this moment in time, this is a direct appropriation," Marnie Kyle said of the Housing Choice Voucher funding, noting the county had not been required to sign new attestations for that program as of the meeting, though that could change if federal guidance shifts.

Deadlines, risks and interim steps

Staff highlighted several time-sensitive items: Washington County requested a CDBG plan extension and was told a final submission deadline of Aug. 15; a number of contracts typically renew in July–August; and some subrecipient agreements have been delayed while the county reworks contract language and reviews attestation requirements. Staff said the organization is using limited one-time county funds as a temporary bridge in some cases while legal review and the resolution process proceed, but warned that using one-time funds carries fiscal risk.

Commissioners and staff also discussed the planned public and internal engagement schedule tied to the resolution: multiple employee listening sessions, community-based organization (CBO) roundtables (July 10–11), anonymous feedback forms for staff and CBOs, and ongoing weekly meetings with ACRE (a community advisory group). Consultants said they would synthesize staff and CBO feedback and return distilled findings to the board ahead of further meetings.

Board questions and legal review

Commissioners raised legal and operational questions about how executive orders are implemented and what the county can lawfully sign. One commissioner questioned a slide statement that an "executive order has the force of federal law unless invalidated by legislation," asking for follow-up with legal counsel; other commissioners said they would rely on county counsel's formal legal advice.

Legal review and counsel's assessment remain central to the process: the draft resolution and any implementing contract language will undergo additional examination by county counsel before the board considers final action.

Distinguishing discussion from action

No formal vote was taken at the work session. Staff and consultants characterized the document as "working draft number 1" and requested commissioner feedback; the board did not adopt the resolution at this meeting. The draft includes the staff directive for semiannual programmatic reviews, but that directive was presented as part of the draft text rather than as an adopted motion.

Next steps

Commissioners asked staff and consultants to return with a synthesis of input from the employee sessions and CBO engagements; presenters said they will update the packet materials between meetings. The board signaled an intention to consider an updated resolution on July 22; staff said they hoped to sign certain grant attestations on July 23 if the resolution and needed contract language are finalized and legal review is complete.

The work session also produced a parallel staff product: a one-page set of proposed board guiding principles intended to help the commission prioritize decisions while legal review continues. Commissioners asked staff to prepare a version 2 for the July 15 packet that incorporates the board's edits and to coordinate with county counsel on any legal clarifications.

What remains uncertain

Staff and consultants emphasized that federal executive orders and resulting agency guidance remain fluid. Several commissioners asked for clearer legal grounding on the interplay between federal executive orders and state law; staff and county counsel said they would follow up privately and provide written legal guidance to the board.

The county's immediate practical concerns remain: the Aug. 15 CDBG submission date, routine July–August contract renewals, and the need to limit service interruptions for community-based partners while the county finalizes the resolution and any required attestations.

— Reporting from the Washington County Board of Commissioners work session; the board will reconvene for further work-session and business meeting items on July 15 and expect to consider an updated resolution on July 22.