Washington County budget committee hears broad cuts, service shifts as county closes in on 2025–26 plan

WASHINGTON COUNTY, Ore. — Washington County staff on Thursday presented the budget committee with a proposed 2025–26 budget that would reduce general-fund spending across most departments, shift certain program costs to ballot measures and special levies, and rely on one-time reserves and federal grants to bridge gaps while the county pursues longer-term revenue options.

The County Administrator’s Office framed the proposal as a reflection of two forces: constrained recurring revenues (primarily property tax growth capped by state law) and rising operating costs, particularly utilities and personnel. Staff proposed cuts ranging from 4% in many departments to deeper, targeted reductions (up to 16% in selected administrative offices), along with requests to use one-time strategic investment funds and existing grant balances to avoid layoffs where feasible.

Why it matters: Washington County leaders said the budget seeks to protect core statutory services while reducing support for activities that the county could either eliminate or transition to other funding sources. Staff warned the committee that some reductions carry programmatic consequences — slower facilities maintenance, fewer prevention services, and tighter staffing that could lengthen response times or require midyear requests to restore capacity.

Major near-term items

- Public-safety shifts: The proposed budget reduces general-fund support to the sheriff’s office by about 5% (eliminating a set of vacant deputy and jail positions on paper) and includes a plan to move eight filled prosecution positions from the general fund to the public-safety local option levy funding stream in the next levy cycle. To bridge a one-year funding gap, staff propose using one-time SIP (Strategic Investment Program) dollars for FY 2026 while a replacement levy is developed for voters in November 2025.

- District Attorney: The package proposes that the county stop operating the child-support enforcement unit and request the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) assume that function. That change would affect roughly 19 county employees (16 administrative staff and three deputy district attorneys were cited in staff materials). Staff said DOJ and the county are coordinating about transition options and possible reemployment.

- Jail and programming: Washington County’s jail capacity is listed at 572 beds, but staffing limits have reduced usable capacity; staff said the county has been operating with fewer available pods because of recruitment and retention shortfalls. Budget documents and presenters emphasized ongoing recruitment efforts and a jail-capacity study now under way.

- ARPA and pandemic-related funds: County staff said Washington County has already obligated most COVID-era funding streams (CARES, ARPA) and recently recaptured roughly $7.2 million from FEMA for early-pandemic expenditures. Those federal and ARPA balances remain largely encumbered for capital projects (for example, HVAC upgrades in congregate settings) and must be spent or reported by federal timelines; staff said some ARPA-funded positions will sunset at the end of 2026, with three extension positions retained through April 2026 for closeout and audit work.

- Facilities and capital: Facilities staff emphasized declining preventive maintenance capacity after successive years of reductions. The presentation shows the county slipping from a “comprehensive stewardship” level to “managed care,” meaning more time is spent on emergency repairs than planned upkeep. Facilities seeks two additional FTE this year tied to new square footage (the county’s new CAP buildings); staff warned further cuts will accelerate deterioration and higher long‑term costs.

- ERP/IT: County IT leaders described progress on a multi‑year enterprise resource planning (ERP) replacement (Workday) funded earlier with a mix of SIP and ARPA dollars. The 2025–26 proposal reduces ITS capital project funding and eliminates several ITS positions (including a proposed deputy/chief innovation role) because of constrained recurring revenues, while staff said the ERP implementation will continue through the fiscal year with existing appropriations and may require midyear supplements if schedule or vendor needs change.

- Land use and transportation: The Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) transfer would be reduced in the proposal; staff said a net year-to-year reduction is approximately 13–17% and that the county will rely on previously authorized bond proceeds and grants to finish prioritized projects. Staff flagged fuel-tax erosion and uncertainty in federal grant availability as long‑term pressure points for maintenance and capital work.

What officials said and next steps

County administrators repeatedly framed the plan as an effort to preserve mandatory and high‑impact services while using one‑time funds and levy strategies to prevent abrupt program loss. Staff asked the budget committee to weigh in on the proposed reductions and to consider alternatives the committee might bring forward as budget amendments. Several committee members urged staff to prioritize core public-safety functions (prosecution and jail capacity) and to pursue aggressive state and federal advocacy to restore grant funding and statutory reimbursements.

The committee will receive responses to written questions submitted by members and a public Q&A packet before final deliberations. Staff noted the board’s direction to prepare a replacement public‑safety levy for the November 2025 ballot; polling on a 66¢ per $1,000 assessed value replacement was reported as underway. The county also plans a revenue‑strategy project to look at predictable sources that can keep pace with inflation and utility cost growth.

What to watch

- Whether the board refers a public‑safety levy to voters in November and, if so, the levy rate and specific services it would fund. Staff said the 2025–26 proposal relies on levy timing and one‑time funds to avoid immediate program eliminations.

- The outcome of the jail capacity study and recruitment/retention results in hiring jail deputies and patrol staff; staff said increasing fill rates could drive mid‑year requests to restore positions.

- Decisions by state agencies on programs the county now funds (notably child-support enforcement) and the effect of those transitions on local staff and service levels.

Ending

Budget staff asked committee members to submit any requested amendments by the published deadline and noted the administration will publish answers to outstanding questions in the next Q&A release. The committee recessed for the day and will resume deliberations at 9 a.m. on the next scheduled day of the budget hearing.

(End of report.)