Washington County to seek state funding for courthouse replacement; board supports submitting a preliminary application

Washington County staff told the Board of Commissioners on July 14 they will submit a preliminary application to the Oregon Courthouse Capital Construction and Improvement Fund to preserve the county’s place in the state's funding cycle, while continuing planning and needs assessment work.

"The ORS requires counties to provide suitable and sufficient courtrooms, offices, and jury rooms to ensure fair, timely and accessible justice," Erin Calvert, an assistant county administrator, told the board as she described cramped courtrooms, accessibility barriers and seismic vulnerability in the existing courthouse.

Staff reviewed the county's planning history: prior seismic and statewide assessments, a 2021 board action to begin courthouse planning, a 2023 local commitment of $1.25 million in match dollars and a 2025 award of planning funds. A space‑needs assessment by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) began in 2026; staff said NCSC completed a first site visit in May and will return in August with a final report expected this November.

Because of the state's biennial funding cycle, staff said the county must make an early, iterative funding request. The Oregon program can contribute up to half of the state‑occupied share of eligible costs, staff emphasized, but "up to 50%" is contingent on occupancy and eligible cost calculations, not an automatic 50% of total project costs.

Staff said the county previously submitted a placeholder construction request of $500,000,000 and proposed using preliminary, iterative numbers to keep Washington County in the 2027 budget conversation; those figures would be refined as NCSC completes the needs assessment and project feasibility work.

Commissioners broadly supported submitting a preliminary application by the state's July 17 deadline but pressed staff for follow‑up work. Several members asked for clarity on which facilities and offices qualify for state matching (for example, judges and some court‑occupied spaces qualify while some prosecutorial offices do not), asked staff to develop a clear local match strategy, and requested a defined steering committee membership before the next update. One commissioner urged deeper analysis of co‑location vs. operational costs, noting that higher capital costs can sometimes be offset over time by lower recurring operational costs.

On timing and scale, staff warned that a best‑case construction start could occur in 2029–2031 under the state timeline and that a realistic opening could be seven to 10 years out; commissioners discussed interim options to maintain services, such as modest remodels or temporary courtroom construction at an estimated cost in the low millions per site.

Next steps: staff will submit the preliminary application by the July 17 deadline to remain in the current funding cycle, continue the NCSC needs assessment, develop schematic design and refined cost estimates, and return to the board with a recommended local match strategy, site options and governance structure. The board did not make a final commitment on site or match funding at the July 14 session.