OSU Extension proposes voter‑funded Washington County service district to boost 4‑H, programming and fairgrounds work
Loading...
Summary
OSU Extension presented a voter‑proposed service district that would phase in a 5¢ per $1,000 local option tax (1¢ per year) to grow its Washington County operating budget from about $500,000 to roughly $4.5 million annually by year five; an alternate immediate 5¢ model would accelerate reserves for fairgrounds capital. County staff were asked to return with refined budgets, engagement plans and clear ballot language.
OSU Extension told the Washington County Board of Commissioners it is seeking a local option service district to stabilize and expand Extension and 4‑H services across the county, with a voter election tentatively targeted for May 2027.
Angela Sandino, regional director for OSU Extension, said the proposal would phase in a 5¢ per $1,000 assessed‑value tax at 1¢ per year over five years, raising an estimated $4.5 million annually by year five. "The plan, of course, is contingent on voter approval in May 2027," Sandino said. She told the board the phased approach prioritizes direct program delivery while building capital and contingency reserves over time.
Under the phased model, year‑one collections at 1¢ would yield roughly $900,000 to sustain existing programming and staff; year‑by‑year increases would broaden youth engagement, agriculture, forestry and community health work. Sandino said Oregon State University (OSU) would continue to supply faculty while the service district would fund local support staff and operations.
The presentation also described an alternate model in which the full 5¢ rate would take effect immediately (beginning 07/01/2027) and a portion of early revenues would be held for fairgrounds capital improvements. Sandino estimated that an immediate 5¢ could generate reserves of about $12.2 million after five years for projects such as the Cloverleaf building and other fairgrounds investments.
Commissioners sought clarification on three points: how the district would be placed on the ballot and whether it would be an OSU‑driven formation or a county initiative; how cities and mayors would be engaged in advance of a ballot measure; and how the fair board’s access and legal requirements would be protected if capital work were proposed on fairgrounds property.
Anne Ober, assistant county administrator, told the board the district formation would remain an OSU process but the county would place the measure on the ballot and continue to review and adopt an annual OSU budget much as it does today. Ober said staff would bring back a more detailed budget that includes administrative/shared costs and a documented engagement plan showing outreach to cities and the fair board.
Several commissioners emphasized the need for clear, public‑facing materials: a simple “dollar bill” graphic that shows where each penny of tax revenue would go, a refined cash‑flow and reserve schedule, and clarification about which dollars would be used for OSU programming versus county facility projects. Commissioners also asked staff to return in time for any newly seated board to review the proposal before final ballot placement.
No formal action or vote was taken. Staff were directed to return with a refined budget, engagement timeline and legal/ballot language for the board’s further consideration.
