Washington County board debates sunsetting CPO program versus modernizing district model

County staff presented two options to modernize the long-running Citizen Participation Organization (CPO) and related CCI structures, prompting extended debate among commissioners over cost, community voice and implementation timelines.

Philip Bransford (communications officer), Courtney Dupreisen (county counsel), and Alicia Sojourner (Office of Access and Opportunity) outlined two alternatives. Option 1 would modernize the existing CPO framework by centralizing administration into district-based CPOs with staff support for notices and records, broadening topic scope to county services, continuing hybrid access, and transitioning CCI oversight to the Planning Commission. Staff said about 85% of recent CPO agendas focused on quality-of-life topics beyond land use and estimated there are currently 6–14 CPO meetings per month across the county.

Option 2 would sunset the CPO program and co-create a district-aligned engagement model with community-based organizations, past participants, and Office of Access and Opportunity staff to ensure cultural relevance and accessibility. Staff described a timeline that would begin background planning in Q1, co-design in the summer, and a potential fall 2026 launch if the co-creation route were chosen.

The board split over priorities. Several commissioners favored Option 1 because it offers staff efficiencies, clearer compliance with public meeting laws, and a faster timeline; others preferred Option 2 if sufficient time and funding are available, arguing co-design would produce a more inclusive and adaptable model. Commissioner Willie said, "if you had to ask me right now ... I would say we cancel the project. We cancel the program completely," reflecting a view that the program’s cost and performance do not justify continued investment without clearer financial sideboards.

Questions from the board included whether the Planning Commission would expand membership (staff said no), how district-based models would preserve local voices on development applications, and what specific financial constraints would govern a new program. Several commissioners urged a slower, phased approach; others urged staff to draft a resolution and order (R&O) for board consideration and to include explicit financial limits.

Outcome and next steps: the board directed staff to develop R&O language and options in time to return with a resolution no later than the county’s second business meeting in January (staff also discussed Dec. 16 as a potential target); staff were asked to include clarity on the Planning Commission’s land-use role, staff capacity and financial sideboards. The session ended with a motion to convene an executive session on potential litigation, which carried unanimously 5–0.

The board did not adopt a final resolution at the work session; staff will return with the proposed R&O and additional information on costs, timing and community engagement steps.