Washington County reviews revenue options to close $5 million general‑fund gap
Loading...
Summary
Board heard a multi‑phase presentation on potential revenue tools — including modest increases to vehicle registration fees, administrative fee recovery, and targeted lodging taxes — and directed staff to return in January with clearer near‑term options and legal/administrative analysis.
Washington County commissioners spent much of their Dec. 9 work session narrowing revenue options to address a projected roughly $5 million shortfall in the general fund.
Erin Calvert, an assistant county administrator, introduced consultant findings from Marina and Company and county staff. Jordan Henderson, a consultant, summarized the Phase 4 work as an implementation viability analysis that ranks options by feasibility, functionality and administrative burden. "We're still in a spot where we're making some high‑level assumptions," Henderson said, and the team is now building county‑specific models to estimate revenue potential and certainty.
Consultants used a color‑coded matrix: green items as promising (high feasibility and functionality), yellow as conditional, orange and red as less suitable. Henderson illustrated the approach with vehicle registration fees, estimating that a $5 increase could produce about $1.6 million in additional revenue, of which the county would keep roughly 60 percent — about $970,000 — under current collection arrangements. He cautioned that final revenue depends on the chosen rate and on state actions that also change registration fees.
Commissioners debated which items could be pursued immediately and which should remain in study. Chair Catherine Harrington urged near‑term action on options that staff judged implementable without a ballot measure, saying the board should "utilize that headspace now" to address immediate operating shortfalls. Several commissioners, including Commissioner Fye, asked staff to prioritize options that do not immediately increase household costs and to first pursue administrative cost‑recovery measures and interjurisdictional agreements where possible.
The board asked staff to return in January with materials that clearly separate: (1) options that are actionable within 12 months, (2) those requiring ordinance or intergovernmental changes, and (3) options that would require voter approval. Staff also were directed to surface legal citations (Oregon Revised Statutes or county charter references), more precise revenue estimates and the implementation burden for each near‑term option.
Next steps: staff and consultants will produce additional analysis for a January 2026 work session and a fuller mid/long‑term package in spring 2026. The board emphasized the need to balance revenue yield, administrative feasibility and community impacts when shaping a final set of recommendations.
