Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clackamas County weighs timetable for renewed public safety levy; staff to form planning group
Summary
After a May referendum defeat, commissioners heard a consultant's review of messaging and strategy and directed the county administrator to propose a small planning work group to scope levy amount, outreach and schedule; a November referral was debated but most commissioners favored more time for preparation.
The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners reviewed research and recommendations on whether to seek voter approval again for its five-year public safety levy and directed staff to form a small planning group to scope next steps.
County Administrator Gary Schmitt told the board the levy, which funds roughly 20% of the sheriff's office budget, failed in May 2026 by about 61 percent. Consultants from Praxis, Jake Weigel and Megan Weaver, said their interviews with commissioners and former sheriff leadership showed recurring themes: unclear messaging of levy value, erosion of public trust after recent budget controversies, and the need to clarify roles between the board and the sheriff's office. "There's a desire for a clear plan of who is leading this work as well as roles and responsibilities for the board of commissioners, the sheriff's office, and PGA," Weaver said.
Board members debated a fast November referral versus waiting until May 2027. Commissioners who favored waiting argued a new sheriff would provide public-facing leadership and more time for polling and refining the levy package; those favoring speed said a November ballot could focus voter attention and reduce the outreach universe. Commissioner Savas warned the simultaneous sheriff election could create competing messages; Commissioner West urged strict accuracy in campaign promises: "We cannot overpromise and underdeliver," he said.
The board stopped short of setting a final referral date and instead asked the administrator to return with recommendations on forming a small internal planning group (two commissioners plus staff) and an optional external advisory group, and to coordinate with Praxis on next steps. Staff said they will return soon with proposed membership, scope, and timelines.
