Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, Board of Commissioners. We are now live. Future Harrington. Good afternoon, everyone. Today is Tuesday, March 17, 2026. This is the Washington County Board of Commissioners work session. Clerk Hodes, could you please take the role? Certainly. Commissioner Snider here. Commissioner Pi, present. Commissioner Trice here. Vice Chair Willie here. Sher Harrington here.

If the board will allow me, I'd like to read a statement. Miss Angie talked to me last Thursday and then Friday we all had the benefit of electronic information per the public records request to the employee who on March 3rd experienced my stern tone of voice and concise words. I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings and made you cry. Let me repeat. I am sorry. I now understand fully that I am a position. In fully understanding that I am the position, I now understand that I don't get to be myself. While the voterapproved county charter defines the terms of the position, people each of the 26 or 2400 plus employees and the full 611,000 community members each get to define and decide what the position is. There is no action anyone can do that I myself have not already imposed on myself. Criticism, punishment, what have you. I now serve on no external committees. I now no longer serve on any internal committees. I ask for no staff briefings. I no longer ask questions, including on budgets, as questions seem to scare some agency staff. And at least at one of the

two agencies, that's not to occur. My apologies to constituents, taxpayers, and rateayers, and to the number of staff at each agency who have thanked me for working to understand their work, for asking useful questions, and for understanding what I'm voting on. I will continue to vote on matters. I do preside over board meetings and rely upon my board colleagues to help me understand the complex nature on display, including in the auditorium, while I presside per the board adopted rules. It is much harder to preside than anyone realizes. One of the three candidates running for chair in the upcoming election will learn this starting next July. I've been living with mental health disease my entire life. I will continue. Thank you. And now the first agenda topic for this afternoon's work session, CPO and CCI modernization update.

Thank you, chair. Uh Ann Ober, assistant county administrator, and I'm here today on behalf of the county administrator's office. Alicia Sojourer, director of access and opportunity. This year, you all have taken actions around the CPO program through a an RNO order. Um, and we are here to talk about the next steps associated with that work. Uh, I'm here today to answer questions. Alicia is going to take us through the slide deck and then we will proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. So just to start us off uh we started the first slide with the uh why modernization was necessary. Uh modernization of the CPOCCI has been going on for about five years roughly give or take. Um, and some of the major factors for maybe those who are not familiar with the background um is a 40-year-old uh model that worked great when it started and throughout uh time and change of demographics uh different development uh the shifting of CPO uh meetings started to be more around uh greater services and less on land use um for the most part. Um also a big piece was um staff resources uh including budgetary uh resources as well. So those are just just a couple of main reasons why modernization was originally talked about and needed. What we know as of now um is that some things for the CP CPO uh CCI program is going to remain the same but for the most part we know a number of things are changing. So remaining the same is looking at this through different district level uh district lens as well as transparency and being compliant as well with all of our state um and local laws. Um what what we know is changing as of right now is the CPO geographic and structure will end. Um we know that

the focus will be on county services and one thing that we have added through this uh process is making sure that we have key performance indicators. So we are truly able to account for who we're reaching out to, who is attending. Um and that's really for accountability reasons. Uh our community members most definitely want that accountability. And so having those KPIs we know will be helpful. Right now um our timeline is as followed and I'll get into a little bit more details about our outreach and engagement. So right now we're in front of you giving you this update on what our plans are through the summer. And this month, uh, individual CPOS are still, um, meeting. Next month in April will be the final CPO, uh, meeting, and that's all CPOS's coming together. It's going to be a hybrid meeting um, on April 24th here at the auditorium. In May and July, that's through the summer, we will be doing intentional outreach and community engagement, talking to different community members and really hearing from them what uh what are they hoping to see or what are they possibly hoping to hear? What what does uh what does something like this mean to community members? So a lot of that engagement will be happening through the summer. In August, uh the OAO team will be synthesizing all the information we received from community

members um and creating the actual model for what we are going to see launch in September and October. We will be uh back to you all in August uh to give you that update around uh what we heard within our community outreach and engagement process. So as we go into our summer of engagement and really listening to individuals, we are rooting this within a few values. These values will also uh continue on into the new structure. And so some of those values are around collaboration and that's collaboration with uh other departments, special districts as well as our community members. Sustainability. Uh we know how important sustainable us being sustainable is with any type of program um that we create for community members especially when community members do look to those different types of programs um for information from the county. Uh we want to make sure that we are consistent, compliant, and that uh all of our engagement is truly accessible and inclusive as well. Along with values, uh we know change is hard. Um some folks embrace change and other folks maybe hide from change. But for us, we know that change is happening. And so uh we use uh a variety of uh change management theories and the reason why we are doing

this through this process is because we're we're all human. um we're working with humans, we'll be talking to humans, and we want to make sure we're doing this through a human- centered approach and also being traumainformed as we navigate these conversations and also uh this change management process also honors the past, our current and our future with the success of whatever program that uh is created. So for our outreach um this summer um we uh we will also have some KPIs for our outreach as well. But as of right now, um we have eight different listening circles uh that uh will be scheduled uh two per district and we'll have a combination of both in person and online as well virtual. Uh we will have two different roundts with CBOS and hearing from CBOS especially culturally centric CBOS. uh we will have uh three different partner conversations and when we mean partner we mean like uh our neighbor our cities special districts um even the sheriff's office as a partner as an example. So uh having these different conversations with our partners um Aika and Willie our outreach uh gurus they are planning to do at least 10 different popups. So this, think of this as like going to farmers markets. Uh I was gonna say the state fair, the county fair. Uh so it's these different

community events that uh they will table and we will have some very fun questions to ask um our community members at those popups. We will have four targeted uh sessions too that support language access. Um we know one for sure in Spanish and uh the second one we are unsure of now. We do want to have a youth uh centric uh session. We know youth are emerging leaders. Some of them are not even emerging. They're already leaders. And so we want to make sure that our next group of voters um are um that we are listening to them as well. And then another target uh area will be rural. We know that uh rural and urban is uh they have different wants and different needs and so we want to make sure we hear um from the rural communities. And then we will also have a online survey which is uh currently um Aika is working with Aster Dr. Aster Pritchard which I believe you all have met now before um to create a survey as well to really hear from community members. So some of our next steps uh will be uh we'll be coming back to you all in uh August. August 11th is what we have currently for the work session to let you know what we heard from community members over the summer and what is the new structure actually going to look like. Um, OAO is still working with LUT,

um, and we're still having conversations about the best way to transfer the goal one responsibility uh to the planning commission. Um, I know that they have to also uh create some new ordinance as well and they're in the process of doing that over the summer as well. So from there, I went through that super fast, but questions, things I can clarify on on that point. um the goal one transfer of responsibilities. It it you know we have to still continue running the business and that includes making sure we're following and and uh sort of meeting our obligations around goal one. So how how is that going? Maybe you can just more almost for the community sake, not just answer to me, but how exactly will that um happen?

Yeah. So during this transition period,

speaking to see if Stephen was here, but that's all good. Um so where's they're uh LUT is still looking at goal one and their structure within the ordinance. Part of what they need to do is rewrite their ordinance. And so they are currently working on that over the summer. Um until then um that is what we are currently working with LUT with is how um where to best place goal one is it continuously working with CCI or a different group. Um so that's something we're still working out.

So a couple of things that I just would add. first um several communities in in Oregon fulfill their obligation for goal one using the planning commission. So this is a consistent move into that uh that arena. Uh they do so often without CPOS. Um so again this really is about how they make sure that their engagement around land use obligations is going out to the broader community. We do not have any concerns at this time about being able to meet that obligation. And we met with Steven Roberts yesterday, the head of LUT, just to confirm his confidence that the timing and transition is not an issue.

It's not an issue. He's looking at probably September when the full ordinance would be before you for approval. Uh the ordinance, just to be really clear, is that right now it still calls out CPOS and they don't exist for you all any longer uh after this month. And so making sure that it's really clear that that is no longer the feeder into the system is the priority. Um so I think at this point we feel fairly confident in that. We are working on a message just to make sure that the two offices are actually consistent. We'll be sending that out to the board of county commissioners for inclusion in this packet just to explicitly state who is managing which portions of that work across the two teams over the course of the next three months. Thank you.

Sure. Thank you for the presentation. And will will the information from this presentation also be on the website? I know it's going to be it's it's, you know, it's posted, but I'm concerned that it's under community engagement so that people understand where we are in the process and what the next steps are going to be. We will add it. Thank you.

I'll weigh And uh Alicia, thank you for your presentation. Um I'm I'm glad we started with goal one responsibilities and I do want to shift a little bit of focus to the CCIs which are going to be existing until September 2026 and how the planning talk us through that. what is the transitional plan uh for CCIs and then what econom accommodations are your office going to make to the CCI members? I understand there is a request on some meeting spaces. Um so can you speak to some of that?

I know you're writing down so I'll slow down. No, no, it's okay. I just didn't want to forget the second question as well. Um, so, uh, when we were talking about like goal one and those responsibilities, we are actually speaking about CCI. So, so we're going to get you a memo probably in the next week with more information about how we're meeting that obligation. Right now, to be clear, the RNO has said we don't have an obligation.

So, we are trying to make sure that in this period of gap that there is still a way for people to engage. Uh the goal under goal one is for communities to have a path forward. So making sure it's clear to communities that they can continue to submit testimony for applications and engage in that space. But this is part of my concern if I just speak for myself has been that we are not the land use office. And so every time that we step into the space, especially around the CCI, I get a little nervous that we are not actually the right actors to be engaging. So that's why we're working with Stephen Roberts and I would ask that I give him the opportunity to respond to your question. And then if community members who are on the CCI steering committee are requesting space for county buildings and bit of accommodation until we get to the September 2026. I would assume we would be able to continue that tradition and that culture to be able to accommodate that. Is that correct? because I am hearing from community members just full transparency that are not really happy how we conduct ourselves in terms of how we say no to the community members. I think uh we've set a certain expectations and we created a certain cultures uh for the community and I think it's it's important that this last bit of a handholding that we do this transition well. We do it in a way that is respectful and dignified. Um, I've heard some community members that said they requested some building arrangements and your office directly said they can't accommodate that and the board comes first priority. So, um, this is something is in your wheelhouse and it didn't bubble up for me to, but since

we're having this conversation, I think, uh, I want to request as one person that the the CCI steering committee and that transition be done in a way that is respectful and dignified.

Yeah, thank you. And, uh, one of the biggest pieces right now is capacity. So a lot so it's typically a conversation around uh can't do it in person but we can remotely start a meeting for them and that has been offered multiple times. Yeah but we will most defin uh I can have continued conversations with uh the steering committee members.

Yeah please do. And um I think uh to me I would say Tanya I can't speak to the capacity issues and I know that is a real thing that's happening especially with the conversation we had last night with the budget. So I think that reality exists and you'd be surprised how very understanding the community members are on that topic. uh but I think the the they're looking to be a bit more accommodated than we have been um and and to facilitate whether that is like hey can you include some news in the newsletter or can we get this room I think um instead of a no there is a way to do the positive no to deliver that positive no so however we do that I think it's what people are looking for so Commissioner F and just commissioners in general if there's ever concerns around um excuse me community interactions or staff conversations with comm whether it's through email and or verbal it is helpful if you share that with us when you receive that feedback so that then between myself and ACAs and the uh relative department directors we can follow up. It's very hard for me to react to situations without all the information. So, Commissioner, if I staff are listening to what you share and I'm sitting here not knowing like the situation or specifics. So, this is what it is.

I would appreciate just a followup after this so that we can put the details together and make sure that we're following up appropriately with whomever has reached out to you and also extending that to other commissioners too. So basically the request is this to be bit more accommodating to the CCI steering committee and then to make sure that uh volunteers are involved in this transition simple as that and I think it's not anything that is new uh to I see some hand heads shaking so um but sorry I went around the the long way to say that um we need you know I I would like to see that because this has been going on for years and we're about to start a new transition. So, it's going to require a bit of a, you know, care and would appear to me that we have done a lot towards reaching out to the community and trying to hear what they're saying. and at the same time um not supporting the program that they want us to support. So these are hard decisions. Um I've gone to a variety of departments with um constituent complaints and requests and gotten told no um and gone back and had that conversation. And it depends on how we not not only how we deliver it, but the homework we do to try and get to yes if we can. So, I'm I'm hearing what you said, Commissioner F, but um I'm also hearing the presentation and um I think we have done a fairly phenomenal

longtime engaged process of transition uh of this um of the CPO um I don't know what you call it program and um and we're trying to transition and find a happy spot when we get to the other side and I think that's I think we're doing a great job of that. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm very comfortable with the direction and with the approach and I believe it will uh continue to provide for community engagement on county activities in a way that is sustainable given the whole variety of things as well as the entire ecosystem of community engagement that we practice here in Washington County. Thank you.

Thank you. As we close out this item, I just want to be very clear on next steps because it's um just over time there has been questions um relative to CPO and CCI. So next steps that I um heard in this conversation is um Ms. Ober and Miss Sojourer will be um adding information to the packet to clarify. We will also be making sure that the website is updated so members of the public not only um look at have access to the packet information but also there's um updated information on the website. In addition, I will also be asking both the teams of OAO as well as LUT to provide an update that I can present to your board during leadership update next week that very clearly speaks to engagement in meeting goal one um objectives. We will be continuing to update through leadership just to let you know team uh letting you know right now leadership updates just because I know this has been a a subject of munique questions that have came to your board and we do want to make sure that we're just transparent through this transition process.

The only one I would add is that at the end of April we will have our last CPO combined meeting as well. So that's the other commitment we made. Thank you. Terrific. Thank you very much. We're a bit ahead of schedule. Is are you're all set with topic two? Okay, great. We'll move on to the 2026 ledge session wrap up. Good afternoon, commissioners. Um, I am Aaron Doyle, your policy and government affairs division manager. I am also playing the role of Zucker Kong, who is out sick today, one of your government relations managers. I will do my best to impersonate his um information, but rest team wants to go ahead.

Good afternoon board. Uh, for the record, Carly Silva Gabrielson, government relations.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Pablo Fenuela, government relations manager. So, let's talk 2026 SLA state legislative wrap-up. So, we're just going to cover this in two chunks. One is about the budget. That was a massive undertaking by the legislature. And then those major policy outcomes that we were working on with your board. Um before we go into the substance, I would just like to say this here. I've said it to all of our department directors as well. Um but the enormous amount of work that had to be done this year in 32 days required not just a very impressive GR team that works hard to understand impacts um but a lot of work from subject matter experts in every department across the county. So I want to publicly thank them for the responsiveness, the detail oriented, the thoughtful partnership. Um, one of the key areas where that happens is in our leadership. Another is in our county council's office. But down to people who see people every day and know what's coming in the door in Washington County, have a a means by which they are communicating up to their leadership to communicate with us. So that's incredibly important to me to say thank you to all of those folks who give the capacity to their colleagues or the information to the GRT. I would also like to extend a very heavy thank you for the amount of responsiveness, deep thoughtful conversation and partnership you as a commission have provided to the to the GR team this session. We had a lot of big policy questions. We had a lot of hard conversations, but we also had a lot of asks of you at the very last minute to come in to testify to approve letters to have conversations. to to all five of you. Thank you for the work you have done to support the Washington County agenda and the Washington County GR team. So, that wasn't on the agenda for today, but it needed to be said. So, thank you all very much. Um, and thank

you to the staff here in Washington County. So, at the end, we will be asking if you have further information needs, but I bet this is going to be robust enough that you won't. Um, just as a reminder, we did have some county priorities that your board adopted for the 2026 session. Those are listed here. I won't read them out, but the big one both for the legislature and the county were to make sure that we are stable both at the state level and at the county level for be for the ability for all of us to provide service to community because at the end of the day, that's what we do in partnership with the state is make sure that the people can be served. So from there I will turn it over to Pablo.

Thank you Erin. Yeah. So um the first thing we want to start with here um was just you know going into the session we knew that the state was trying to close a budget hole that it was facing and um the way that they ended up doing that was through a couple of different ways. The first is SB1507 which you know of course that was the one that pulled uh sort of decoupled from federal tax law. That was some of those changes that were included in HR1 which of course um were going to transfer over to the state's tax law and that would have um created some revenue challenges. So some of those portions of that bill were decoupled from state tax law and that was uh that was part of the way that they were able to close the budget gap they were facing. The other um big one here was uh making budget reductions that totaled at about $128 million, excuse me. And um the main way they ended up doing that was actually by cutting unfilled positions and things like office supplies. Um of course what we were really concerned about was pass through dollars that go to the county. And um it looks like in in most areas that we were successful uh as as local governments and advocating against cuts like that. So um I'll leave it there and then we can move on to the next slide. and I'll pass it to Carly.

Great. Thank you so much, Pablo. Um, commissioners, as we all know, transportation was one of the major issues that the legislature grappled with this session. Um, the Oregon Department of Transportation is facing currently about a $289 million budget gap for the current bienium, largely due to declining gas tax revenue and rising costs. So Senate Bill 1601 contained the legislaturator's solution to addressing that shortfall, which is relying on leaving approximately 100 positions unfilled at ODOT and redirecting about $108 million from planned projects to cord core road maintenance needs. Uh very importantly for counties and cities, the bill did not change the 503020 funding formula and does not impact the local bridge program or the local fund exchange programs. Um the trade-off, however, is that fewer projects will move forward and Oregonians will see reduced transportation services for this bianium. Um I did want to highlight that while Senate Bill 1601 did not uh change the 503020 funding formula, um the issue did surface during a committee process for House Bill 4007. Amendments to that bill were proposed that would have redirected the state highway fund dollars away from cities and counties to backfill the safe routes to schools program. Um along with another amendment that attempted to offset that by uh removing the voter approval requirements for local revenue measures. Although those amendments were not adopted, frankly, thanks to strong local government advocacy, um we really expect that conversation surrounding the state highway fund allocations and local revenue authority will continue this year and into the 27th session.

Can I ask you please question on that? Do we know the is the 108 million is it disagregated to know specifically how much is cut from each program? Is there that information available?

We have not seen those exact line items yet. However, we do know the total accounts that they're looking at that are in HBA 2020 20 2017, excuse me. So, I can provide the board that information. Thank you, Commissioner F. I'll now move on to um slide six which encompasses three priorities I want to update the board on. The first one, um, uh, Senate Bill 1601 also included some final hour revisions that remove the cap on county, um, fairground, the county fairground account of, uh, $1.53 million. And we'll dedicate now a full 1% of the lottery revenue to county fairs. That's going to be effective on July 1st, 2027. What that change is expected to result in is roughly a 100 to 200% increase for our county fair accounts. Um although final projections are still coming. So that was a result of some late night negotiations between um some Lamament Valley and metro area legislators and those on the east side of the state. So a great accomplishment that many of those including Commissioner Willie and of course um everyone at our fairgrounds have been working on for a very long time. Um, I also wanted to highlight uh that the legislature approved $25 million for firsttime funding uh in bonds for affordable housing preservation. There is a policy bill connected to that ask that I'll I'll highlight later, but again, first time ever that the legislature is providing funding for affordable housing preservation. So, those funds will be used to preserve homes uh similar to Wood Springs Apartments. So, really great accomplishment there. Wait, is the process for the for accessing those funds? Is it like a a grant process? Do you know how that's going to work or is it just right now?

Great questions, Commissioner. Um, OCS is going to manage the allocation of that funding. So, I will dig in for more information on what that process will look like because I think we got 25 million just for what's remembering correctly. I will need a lot more than what is listed. I wrote that.

That's exactly right. And I will highlight that the initial ask was $und00 million and of course a legislature had so much to balance this session. So um but a huge accomplishment to create that fund and certainly move that yes down down the field. Um I also wanted to highlight that the initial cuts that were proposed at the department land of conservation and development that uh your board submitted testimony asking to be preserved at the beginning of the legislative session. Uh those resources were maintained. And so that was another great accomplishment for your board. And with that, I will turn it back over to Pablo. Thank you.

Thanks, Carly. So, um, getting into some of the the top budget items that we were looking at and, uh, playing defense on this legislative session, um, when it comes to public safety and justice, a lot of the the core uh, programs that, um, this board has has prioritized were those funding levels were maintained. So, community corrections funding was maintained, law library funding as well as mediation and consiliation service funding was maintained and the CJC grants that uh we rely on, several departments rely on to do um a lot of really strategic work in the community, those were maintained as well. Um I just want to, you know, while we are we're very grateful that there were not cuts, um I just want to point out the elephant in the room there with community corrections. The funding level was already far lower than than we had uh uh hoped that it should be. Um and we were, you know, surprised in the 25 legislative session when it wasn't um uh higher than uh than the the um the current service level funding, but um of course it is still a good sign that it was maintained and we'll continue advocating um to to make sure that we're fully being compensated for the work that we're doing. Pablo, if I could just add to that, just to put a finer point,

the state conducts a cost study to determine what should be the amount that the state dedic um in essence transfers to community corrections departments to be able to deliver the service. The state is not meeting their own cost study. So it is good news we're not going further backwards but we are already backwards from what the state has said is the cost to deliver the service based on the um the metrics that the state has developed on their own. So I I want to also point that out. I also want to point out that our law library has significantly reduced hours. So, um, thank you for being bringing the positive that it's maintained and we still need to continue to add the advocacy space.

Yeah, that's right. It's the same story with law, library funding, and mediation, consiliation funding, and even some of the CJC grants as well. So, um, moving from there, um, we did have local governments did have one really significant win, I think, this legislative session when it comes to the transient lodging tax. So this is the the tax that's collected on hotel room stays, Airbnbs, that sort of thing, right? And local governments um counties and cities in particular are currently required to use approximately 70% of that to promote tourism, tourism related facilities. um that funded. So essentially now uh under HB4148 the county and other uh local governments will be able to use 50% of that for pro promoting tourism and tourism related facilities and the other 50% can go to general services like um you know law enforcement and all the other core services that we provide right so um looking at the revenue that we were uh that we generated last year um through the the the TLT um and based on that If we were to apply the the funding or I guess the the the split in funding that uh that is under this bill, that would have been like an extra $3.6 million that we would be allowed to use of that revenue for general services. Of course, that money is going somewhere right now, right? So, um those are decisions that the board will be able to make, but it does allow a lot more flexible use of that spending, which is significant, especially considering the the challenges that uh we're facing um from a budget perspective. So, um, just want to celebrate that win and we'll go on and move to the next slide and I'll pass it. Oh, yeah, sure.

Um, so when when will this actually come into play? I I'll I'll follow up with you on the implementation date, but I'm pretty certain that this kicks in at the beginning of next year. Uh, yes, that's right. Cal, thank you for that clarification. Uh, so January of 27. Okay. Uh and then you know I'm going to go back a few because I didn't ask the question on the Senate bill 1507 which is the decoupling that is the tax. Um I have seen very little on what exactly they decoupled from the feds. So, if you could uh get me that information

and also knowing that a whole bunch of people have already filed their 25 five actual terms um obviously this is not effective for 25 so it's effective for 26. That is my understanding at this point in time is that is for the next tax year and it is the same implementation rate as HR1 is my understanding but I will confirm that when we provide the fuller information as it relates to what specifically was decoupled. Well, so how do you fix an existing hole in the budget of $128 million with something that doesn't even come into play until next year? benium.

We have a bianial budget system, but we are in the middle of that benial. So, we got about six months of what's left of the current budget in in that scenario. So, I'm just asking. I mean, this seems to me like a little smoke and mirrors. We will try to work that out specifically, but I know that the legislative fiscal office does that math and tells them the numbers and I will crib their work and provide it back to you. They're going to provide $128 million of new revenue in the January to April 1527 tax year for the 26 year by so they're going to generate $128 million in that. So

the decoupling I believe saved $300 million to be really clear the 128 million is related to reductions in agency spending. So that's the other side of the ledge le ledger that was 128 million for the bianium. Okay. So yeah if you could just give me more details tax code was impacted by that

um for the bienium uh our bienium is FY 6 and FY27. Okay. Um I my point goes to even One more slide back. Oh, sorry. The stabilization funding one. There you go. This one that has fair ground funding. That one. Sorry.

Um I should have used a number. Um when I was a metro counselor, uh we understood that the region frequently or on occasion went to the legislature and made an ask for lottery funding for um light rail expansion, which meant that part of my training as a metro counselor uh and all of us as a work group was the way that lottery collections works. So essentially from the games as well as from the video lottery and we uh when we worked as a region to go make those uh large asks for the match for federal grants, we had to be cognizant of the forecast for lottery funding. uh but also to be sensitized to the fact that the generations of video lottery machines let alone the games is a thing. So, uh, for future boards, you may need to, uh, develop some new training information for future board members around lottery funding because it doesn't always grow and isn't forecast to always grow. that's going to and with that dependency or the county fair account, it's something that I anticipate future boards will need to be more sensitive to.

Yeah. And just to add on that, the dependence county does have on lottery funds as as a funding source that is discretionary supporting the general fund, too. So, I'm just adding that and you. Let me go to slide seven uh real quickly. Yeah. Um I've got a bit of an assist here from Alex County Council on the implementation date for 4148 and it's the 91st day after the end of the 2026 legislative session. So basically, you know, about uh 75 days or so from now. Oh, 91 days is fun to calculate.

Yeah. So between now and then, we got to figure out how to apply the new rules. Well, the amount's not changing. Yeah. Collections is just what you do with it on the city. You look at if you look at the allocation on you've seen this because the cities are in there with their own, but you know, school districts and all this stuff, they all divvy up a portion of the 9% and I think state added one more that this year. So, the the allocations get changed a little bit is what I So, good opportunity for a memo. Yeah. Yes. Sorry, we don't need to get into those.

And also good timing. I I don't have that rolling agenda up in front of me. However, I believe it's April 16th that we had already planned to come back to the board and give an update on um TLT collections in general because we are seeing a decline. So, we will make sure to add this component to that discussion for your board. Great. Um, and with that, unless there's any other questions, I'll pass it over to Erin.

Jenny Decker, at this moment, um, essentially the topline takeaway, um, and I will stick to that as much as I can, is that there were no cuts to funding from the state to the county. So, the pass through funds have been maintained. Um there is however future thinking already implicated because not only did the federal HR1 act have tax cut uh income tax changes in it, it also had various cost shifts into running programs that the state runs that are also federally funded. And therefore in anticipation of those increased costs occurring at the beginning of 2027 or in the next fiscal year um for health and human services both OA and the department of human services they needed additional money to implement those changes and make sure that they can continue the administration. So additional funds were needed there in order to make sure that they can actually do the work that was required under HR1. with that. Sorry. Sorry. Um so um my apologies. So um the sustainable harvest bill, this is related to the budget priority we had um related to the HCP. I know Commissioner Willie, you were really engaged on this and this is a bill that you testified on um in in uh in the the last session. So, um, this bill, it did unfortunately did not pass this session, and it was sort of be for the same reasons that it didn't pass the previous session, and that's because there there was some opposition from environmental organizations, um, who were concerned that it could sort of uh, be used as a a loophole to to put pressure on the state um, and uh, and and to really undermine the HCP uh, fundamentally. But, uh, we we don't believe that those concerns are really founded. I think what really uh is was the biggest detriment for this bill is the fiscal impact which the

Department of Justice as well as the Department of Forestry both slapped a pretty big fiscal cost on it. U based on on my conversations with uh with Brandon at AOC um there it seems as though those fiscals were not um that they don't uh they don't they don't really seem to match the policy implications of the bill. And you know, the DOJ, for example, was saying that if they had to pay out um any lawsuits in these cases that it would cost $10 million, but there was a change made to the bill this session that would have actually um made it so that there there was no financial compensation that would happen as a result of these lawsuits. It would just simply be that the state would have to remedy the problem by fixing um the uh the projection that they had for harvest levels, right? because um essentially counties might want to uh if they believed that the state's harvest levels were not accurate, that their projected harvest levels were not accurate, that we would be able to sue to sort of force those changes. And the remedy here was simply that to force them to do that, not to, you know, charge them or, you know, uh uh be compensated financially beyond that. So

departments can submit fiscals that have no oversight from the legislature or this they don't have to be based in reality. This is new to me.

The process of the fiscal impact statement is a bit of a black box and that's is um so a state agencies are all requested. They have to provide justifications and those aren't necessarily included in the final report from the legislative fiscal office. the Association of Oregon Counties, a special districts association and the League of Oregon Cities are also asked for those fiscal impact statements. And even when we provide robust um financial impacts uh with backing of why and how we get to the numbers we get, they don't always come out with anything related to what we put in. So um before I go too much further into the politics of a fiscal impact statement, um yes, they can. How they are used is not always clear. Yeah, that's that's exactly right. And um you know, looking forward with this bill, um I I spoke with Brandon earlier this week and it sounds like ODF has told them that has told him that they feel like they could do this without legislation um and without a fiscal. Um they simply are concerned that if you put it in statute that that would uh force them to uh to generate a fiscal, but that they think they can simply do the work without without any of an appropriation. So to be frank, uh, you know, I'm a little bit skeptical that that

Let's see if that will work, right? Yeah. Exact. Yeah. I mean, that would be wonderful, right? And so we will we'll work with them um to hopefully get find a non-legislative solution that will generate the same information that this bill would have. That said, um you know, if they don't follow through on that or the solutions that they propose really don't meet what we are asking, then um I think the next conversation really is with the uh with the legislature, with the legislative fiscal uh office to to sort of um get them to uh help them understand this our concerns with the fiscals that are coming out of these agencies and and hopefully um make it so that you know if there if we have to reintroduce this bill that there's not a significant fiscal placed on it next time or finding some other remedy uh that you know takes out the Department of Justice situation out of it. Um and so there's some ideas that were floating around there. But a couple different avenues on how we plan to move forward with that next session.

So if I could just

add a whole bunch of crap to that condense it down. Okay. First of all, um, ODF has said they could manage 185 million board feet of harvest, but they don't have the staffing to go above that. The Council of Forest Trust Lands has said if you go above 185, we will find you the money to pay for that staff to do that. ODF gets a third of the harvest dollars, and that's how they pay for their budget. So if they reduce harvest, they're cutting their own budget and then they have to go to legislature asking for money which doesn't work very well. So the whole thing is really in a spin cycle. And then you talk about lawsuits. The whole concept of the habitat conservation plan was to significantly reduce lawsuits. We have an HCP now. It hasn't been adopted by the feds, but that's the whole purpose. And so, uh, there's a lot of spin that's going on to this and there's no reason why we can't ask and get ODF to give us a 10-year sustainable harvest that works for everybody. And so, it's all politics on the environmental side at this point in time. So, that's my two business.

Thanks, Commissioner. Yeah, next slide. So, um, another, uh, priority that this board set was preserving the, uh, 1.25 25 million that was appropriated um during the 2025 legislative session and uh we were successful in making that happen. So um I just want to there's a few people I want to shout out here. I mean first I want to start with this this board. Um you know your engagement on this was particularly effective. I think Washington County legislators understand that um this this was a top priority and this was a way for them to deliver for um for their communities. So, I really want to just give a shout out and appreciate um this board and um also want to call out the work that we did with the communications team. Um Commissioner Trice, I know that you participated in the the press conference that we organized as well as Judge Guptil um uh and and uh Brian Rob from our planning team as well. They did really good work with our communications team to spread the word, generate media coverage about this priority. And um you know I think that was really important for helping the legislature understand that this wasn't sort of a a siloed issue where you know just few people who work in the courthouse care about it. This was really something that impacts the whole community. Um because the courthouse is such a it's really just the nexus point for public safety in our in our region. Right. And um I also want to of course uh want to point out the support that we had from the Washington County Caucus. Um we basically every every legislator who was not a member of leadership uh uh you know signaled their support for preserving this funding um and and folks who are members of leadership they're they're told not to you know sign on to letters and that sort of thing. So that's that's why I want to uh uh I wanted to point that heart out. But um but I also want to give a specific shout out to Senator Courtney Nuron Mistlin uh Representative Nathan Sosa Representative Farah Chaii. they all uh went beyond that and had conversations with the Ways and Means

co-chairs um on our behalf to to keep reminding them of the importance of uh preserving this funding. So, it really, you know, it really took a village on this one. Um but uh we really appreciate all the collaboration that that had to happen for for this funding to be preserved and look forward to pursuing uh construction dollars as we as we move forward with the planning process. And of course, we we need to wrap up that grant agreement with the planning process. just don't want to get too far ahead.

The other thing I think we did well on this one too and I think it's worth acknowledging just for the future is we started early like we were we were doing this stuff in or starting doing some of this stuff in late November, early December, way before the session even started. I think that was also part of the by the time we were having discussions in January with certain members of the Washington County Caucus. They'd already heard it once or twice and so we were, you know, reinforcing it and saying, "Hey, remember we just talked about this." So I I think that was an important part of the plan that you all helped orchestrate. I also want to um call out first of all, you guys did a great job, the GR staff, but our our other staff also uh staff assistants and others worked hard and really uh really pushed on a lot of information gathering and pieces that helped really build the story and I just want those folks to get the recognition as well. So, thank you.

Absolutely. I will double down on that as the other half of my team is vital to the GR team's success. They are part of the GR team, but the staff assistants to your board um made sure you were all available and had the information you needed. So, they deserve a lot of

kudos for making sure we look good to all of you for them. I would also highlight uh in I'm just going to say in my case, her awareness of how the systems operate in Salem, her awareness of who to call, when to call, uh really was invaluable. So, thank you for um in hopes of moving us along because we've already eaten up all the extra time we were given and we have a few more slides to go through, I'll move to the major policy outcomes. Again, we did have established priorities as a county that your board um uh gave to us as a team. I will say there aren't any slides related to the recruitment and retention of talent necessary for our communities. Um largely because it just was not there wasn't a path forward this session. Um but it is important to rema uh to maintain that stable budgets mean people feel secure into entering those professions. So it starts with opportunity to maintain the work. Um and we will continue um to figure out ways by which we can encourage the state to help us through recruitment and retention. Um other county priorities uh resided squarely with the legislature in the economic development. So we'll talk about that and then just a quick highlights on the immigration rights federal response public meetings laws and affordable housing preservation policy portion. Um and with that I will turn it back to Carli. Um, as your board is aware, economic development was another overarching theme of the legislative session. And so this first slide covers Governor Kotak's economic development bill, House Bill 4084. Um, this bill was ultimately amended in ways and means to include a one-year moratorum on new data centers and enterprise zones while the governor's advisory committee on data centers conducts its review. Um, but the bill essentially establishes the joint permitting council. It directs agencies

to publish a comprehensive catalog of available permits and modifies enterprise zone criteria in a few different ways that are itemized there on the slide. Um throughout the session, the county worked very closely with partners and legislators to advance a cost recovery solution for counties administering enterprise zones. Given the increasing complexity of the program and the growing impact on the county general fund administering this statewide program, we advocated for a nocost solution to the state that would have allowed counties to recover administrative costs and ultimately those provisions were not adopted and the bill has been signed into law. Looking ahead, the governor's advisory committee on data centers has now convened and Umatillaa County Commissioner Dan Doran is engaging on behalf of AOC and counties through that process. While cost recovery did not advance this session, this issue remains unresolved and will absolutely require a statewide solution and may be uh a viable option for a future board to consider for prioritization in a future legislative session. Who's advising that legislative group that's evaluating this that you mentioned?

Great, great question. It is um a Governor Cotex group and I can return the board um the full membership of that slate. Is there anybody on there that actually deals with enterprise loans and data centers? Um, as mentioned, Commissioner Willie, Dan Dorne from Umatillaa County, um, is representing counties and there is several folks from, um, economic development groups and I believe an individual from a data center group. So, I'll follow up and get the full roster to the board. Okay.

Related Commissioner Schneider, do you know if Commissioner Doran has been participating in the governance and revenue steering committee? I

I'd be happy to jump in and inform the board that Commissioner Doran was active on the last steering committee and did provide an update to that group about his involvement with the data center advisory committee um and has been engaging with AOC staff. Uh he really wants to represent the full experience of counties throughout the state with uh with this administration. So, um, the board I think will have opportunities to provide that feedback through AOC and to the commissioner. Well, I I'm happy we're going to support the AOC on this, but at the same time,

I think the fact that we have 50 data center or 50 Ezones County alone, I would say that we weigh in fairly strongly on our own and that's what I'd like us to do. Commissioner, I can't I can only say that's what I'd like you to do. I got four other cons commissioners here that may say, "Nah, we're not going to do that." But that's I really think we have a vested interest significantly in this and we've got to be a player.

Thank you for that. And I will talk with Aaron and our um our counterparts about how we can engage and find opportunities for the board to provide that direct feedback.

Yeah. Thank you. Okay, now I'm going to move us forward to um the next economic development bill, Senator Sman's bill um which was Senate Bill 1586, which ultimately did not advance this legislative session. During the committee process, the county was actively engaged on the bill and we worked to advance an amendment addressing cost recovery for enterprise zone administration. Ultimately, enterprise zones were removed from 1586, so it resolved that concern. Um, we also worked with partners to create a provision in the bill that would have allowed for cost recovery specifically related to administering a local option capital tax local option equipment t tax tax exemption, excuse me. Um, which was successfully amended to the bill. So, that was that was really great. But ultimately some legislators really raised concerns that they felt like there wasn't sufficient time for um a full public process specifically regarding the land proposed in 1586 and so the bill did not move forward this session. We do expect that the conversation around industrial land supply and the role of local governments will continue and um that we will possibly be looking at this specific uh piece of land again in the future. So we'll remain very engaged on this issue and um and do expect for it to return in future legislative sessions

to be to ensure that I am sharing an update. Uh Senator Sman told me on Friday that uh she will not be advancing uh this the topic of increasing industrial land urban rural reserve switching in any future session. Thank you for that chair. Wonderful. And with that I will turn it back over to Aaron. Steal the microphone first. Um again playing the role of Dr. Khan here. Uh so please don't

don't ask me any technical questions. I am not going to go through every single bill on this um slide but there were a number of bills that were kind of could have been a package could have been just individual bills but we're really focused on how um the state is reacting to the ongoing immigration enforcement and federal response that is occurring within Oregon. Um the vast majority of these bills are listed for your awareness, but there are some that um Zucker did highlight for me that may have some potential impact on county work. The first being House Bill 4138, the law enforcement accountability and visibility act um act. Um these it requires law enforcement agencies um to have public policy generally restricting the use of facial coverings by their on duty officers and prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings while on duty except under specified circumstances. We will work with our sheriff's office um when they are allowed to use those um facial coverings. There still needs to be identifi identifying information on their person. Um so this is effective immediately. So, I know that our county council's office is already engaged in the work with our sheriff's department. The next bill that I will go to as I turn all my pages to fight.

So, these all passed.

These are all um passed uh uh as far as I know, and if I'm incorrect, I will let you know. Um the Senate Bill 1587, privacy protections from data brokers. This specifically uh prohibits government bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to a data broker without an accepted attestation from the broker that the data will not be sold or transferred to an entity that will use the information for immigration enforcement. There are per obvious exceptions for court orders and data subject to disclosure under public records law. So, in line with our um Oregon laws already, um again, this is uh effective on passage. So, I'm sure our county council is always already making sure that those uh data contracts include that provision. And then finally, your board in past sessions, so not in 2025, but previously had worked on um the universal representation providing support for that program. So, Senate Bill 20 uh 5204 provides $8 million in general fund for universal representation um which is a um program by which there are legal supports and lawyers made available or paid for through that fund um in their immigration uh process. So, those um 5.6 will go to that fund. 2.4 four is provided to the Oregon State Bar for immigration legal services directly and an additional two million in general fund to the Department of Human Services for refugee assistance. Um I will happily write notes if you need further answers and get them to you in the future. But those were the big ticket items that have a direct impact either to previous work or the work of the county currently. The question I would have is uh for ourselves and county staff is

where do we direct people should they ask about how to take advantage of these funds? I will work with the comm's team to make sure that those links are available to all of us. Thank you for jumping in um there Miss Doyle. So um Miss Doyle work with um our comm's team. We do have a standing immigration refugee services page um that we direct community to other sources so that we're not responsible for keeping up to date information. So we'll make sure this information is included there.

I heard about the protect your door act. I will turn it over to

Thanks, Aaron. So, um, excuse me. Um, another, uh, another priority that was taken up by the legislature this session was, uh, really reforming public meeting law, closing a couple of, um, sort of problematic loopholes and, uh, resolving an attempt attempt to resolve a very long-standing issue with public meeting law in Oregon related to serial meetings. Um, I guess I'll just start with that one. That's the last one on this list here, HB4177. Um, there uh there's been a lot of confusion in in the past about what constitutes a serial meeting violation. Of course, you all know that, you know, being u you know uh you can sort of trigger public meeting violations by having conversations that with a with a majority of your colleagues on this board, right? But serial meetings are sort of when information is passed from one person to the next, right? and and uh and that can sort of that can create quorum violations as well when there's essentially discussions happening like that, right? And so uh this bill provides a little bit more clarification on, you know, specifically what sorts of things can and cannot be discussed. Um uh uh sort of some exceptions, you know, when you're talking about you're just sharing information that you got from a constituent, for example, or talking with a reporter who's talking to your colleagues, right? So things like that, right? Um and so that that bill I think will be beneficial to the county. Um the other two are also good for local governments as well. HB4159 adds a local government representative to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. Uh previously there was no local government representation. Um HB 4161 uh that closes what folks were uh calling the I think we're calling the hot dog rule, right? which was uh where folks were um not able governing bodies weren't able to purchase food and beverages for members of those bodies. You know, if you're having a long meeting, sometimes that can be really helpful, especially when you're considering you know, communityappointed groups and that and that sort of thing. So, this closes that

loophole. We can now um you know, provide modest food and beverage. The context for that was not that it was illegal to do that. It was that there was no law that said that, but the ethics commission concluded, right, the violation, right? That's how the ethics commission determined that the purchase of food or beverage for public officials i.e. staff or any any minimum committee voluntary

committee um was a violation of the public the office of the economic gain from a public office. So it's a very complicated thing. the your bo the county leadership had already resolved that internally to Washington County by making it clear it is part of the compensation package um and part of incidentals for purposes of volunteers but this makes clear that OJI took it a step beyond what the legislature intended. Yeah, right. Thanks. That's the proper way to say that, Alex. Yeah. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate that, Erin. This is common. I might say some of their interpretation. Yes. Yes, that's right.

Problem. Was there a bill that passed that had to do I don't remember the number of it, but something about if bunch of electeds attend a training or conference, they're considered as a public meeting. I'm not I'm not specifically sure about what that's referencing, but we'll look into it and get back to you and provide a clear answer. Thank you.

Wonderful. And um second to last slide board. Uh so now we turn to the policy bill connected to the $25 million investment for affordable housing preservation. The bill 4036 creates um the uh housing opportunity longevity and durability or hold fund which is a dedicated funding source to preserve affordable housing. As this board knows with Woodr Apartments, having a um having resources available at the right time is crucial to preserving affordability. And so this bill creates a more proactive framework to do just that, to be prepared for those types of in of interventions when needed. Um, backed by that initial investment of $25 million. It's also worth highlighting this is the first time that the state is is applying the article 11 Q bonds to affordable housing preservation. So while we would have loved another zero following that 25, um, it it definitely provides a framework for us to return and and request more funding. Thank you.

Prompt you, Carly. That is for the remainder of this bianium, right? Yes.

So 25 million for the um with that we'll turn to our policy question. If there's further information that you would like from your GR team to bring back in written form, happy to take those questions now. Turn it back to you. I I have u a hard time uh at the end of a session and with reportups like this really understanding which bills take effect when I know it's a really complicated formula, right? Because the governor has so long to veto a bill um or to just not sign it and then it becomes effective. So, what I'm going to be curious about is which of those bills become effective uh after this calendar year. uh and making sure that the next board knows what has changed uh as part of their on boarding in order to support your efforts and agenda for the upcoming long session. So really from my standpoint I don't need to have a grasp on on that until September. So I realize it can It's just not something you're able to do right now, right? So, that's what I want to reinforce. This is really great information

for me today. Uh, but I know I'm going to start wondering in about that September time frame.

That's fair. Um, there are three essentially three dates by which a law becomes effective. One is on passage which is as of the governor's signature or decision not to sign and allow enough time for the veto to lapse. Um the second is 91 days from the siny die of session which I forgot to do the calendar counting which is always a fun project for me. Um so we we'll figure that out. And then the third date is on upon January 1st the next calendar year. That's your standard date. So everything that passed Oh, thank you Carly doing math. Uh the 91st day is June 5th of this year. So um we will make sure that our departments, our county council and um administrative offices all understand what changes and when. Um but we will be mindful of that for um the future board conversations around the 2027 legislative agenda which will start in February of 2027. So we'll have some time. As a former mayor of Tigard, I am very appreciative of the continued reference to the Woodring Apartments and that uh you know I I guess by being a little loud and obnoxious as mayor, I helped create a monster that is a good monster, but it's the reference that keeps keeps giving. So, I'm I'm glad to hear that's still referenced. I'm sure at some point we'll have other projects that we need to figure out and maybe maybe it'll get a new name. Thank you for that, commissioner. The curse and the blessing of being the first.

Yes. Anything else? No. Good job. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for all the effort during session. I know it was pretty wild and fast-paced even for short session standards, right? Yes. And we will come back with all of the answers to your questions in um Friday's memo or as quickly as we possibly can. And soccer might be sick and I can't do him forever. Thank you for your time today. What do the legislators do between now and February?

Um most of them are going on a um information silence because it is the campaign season. So there's a requirement that they go dormant until after the finalization of the elections as far as using their elected um information to go out. They will be campaigning because it is a senior year for um the entire house and a portion of the senate. and then they will start creating their legislative agendas and start um feeding those in when we come back to your board next. We didn't do a next steps because I didn't have the time to or we did not have the time to figure out when we had the time to come back for the 2027 process, but we will have those dates. They haven't published that calendar yet. So, they're thinking about their futures and future legislative concepts.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So board um you have a decision to make. Would you like to take a 15minute break now or would you like to move forward with board leadership communication and formal agenda item discussion then take a break before we go to exec session? I would like at least 10 minutes of a break. Full 15 way. Okay. So, we'll take a 15minute break and reconvene at 2:35.

Welcome back, commissioners. Over to you, Chair Harington.

Great. Thank you. We're now back from break and so we'll continue on with agenda item three, board and leadership communication and formal agenda item discussion. Would the board like to start with a formal agenda item discussion? Great. So we have two business meetings tonight. We first have the clean water services business meeting starting at 5:30 uh with four items on the consent agenda. Then uh the converse of what we had last week with the uh IGA between Washington County and the urban road maintenance districts. Then we have the board of county commissioners business meeting uh with 20 items on the consent agenda. uh boards and commissions, one item, two proclamations, two public hearings, and then two action items.

Go ahead, Commissioner T.

Um I would just like to point out to fellow commissioners that um consent item on the board of commissioners for Washington County schedule is to approve the temporary closure of approximately 70 days Kaiser Road. And I'm just I'm just elevating this because of the discussion that we had around River Road. I want to draw your attention to the description in um that's attached here. I think that they've done a good job of working with school districts and with others. So, I'm not I'm not inclined to pull it off the consent agenda, but I just wanted to highlight that I have as well. It sounds like others have looked at this and I I'm comfortable with the approach being made. I thought they did a good job.

Yeah. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Is there anything else with regard to tonight's agenda that we need to talk about? I would just ask that on the rule of law we try to work out whatever we're going to work out during like time this afternoon. Right.

Right now. I'd like to try to work I'd like to work the issues there and and then move forward in the business meeting hopefully my request to not rehash everything if uh oh there's been a couple times where I feel like that's been not very effective and so I I just that's my ask. I know not not everybody may agree but Well, I've got two of you who do.

I would agree. and Commissioner Willie. So, why don't we start there? So, we have um the original uh well, I call it the original, but it's the resolution and order from our I believe um February, 20 17th, and the 24th. Uh then we have two different uh versions. The Commissioner Fi. So, the first one with three amendments uh and then another one with a suggestion. So, how would you like to with discussing those?

Maybe we start with a suggestion one chair. Feel free. They're not mine. So, I'm Yeah, I think that's a good place to start where there may be some consensus.

Yeah, I think so. Yeah, we can start there. Um, obviously I sent out two I would like the board to consider at least one of the the the the one that has the three, but we can start there um and then go to the one that has the three amendments. and Commissioner Willie for your request highlighted so that you know uh the one that county council suggestion versus the other one the difference

and I'll just to start the conversation I will say that I can support the county council's revised version that is in the draft of the one the one concept um the other two I I just I don't think They well for one they're not written in the draft separately and I don't I don't think county council recommend that they be included if it is I'm not really supportive of that content given our conversations and you'd agreed to take number three and put it into the legislative our legislative advocacy process and I would still stick with that um and I think you were amendable to that so just to start the conversation that's where I'm Yeah. So the the the first one I think there's consensus. I don't uh I I don't think we need to rehash that one. Uh the one

I'm confused about what the first one.

Yeah. Me too. So, I believe if I can use reflective listening here, Commissioner Snider, your comments go towards the uh county council suggestion uh that reads it appearing to the board that the board as the executive body of Washington County, has a responsibility to model adherence to the Constitution of the United States and state of Oregon to ensure the counties practiced adhere here to and to in appropriate circumstances use its institutional voice to oppose unconstitutional actions that affect county residents. Correct.

So that's the one that you say you support in cont. That's correct. I don't um and and inappropriate circumstances. So, who's going to determine an appropriate circumstance? Our board. I don't think we need it. So,

I'm a yes. And if if it got to you to yes, we could say in appropriate circumstances as determined by the board, it will use its institutional voice. If that if that changed your position just offering that I just don't know what it so we used our institutional voice to oppose unconstitutional actions that affect the county resident.

Yeah. The point it's conveying is that we're not going to just sit and observe and not like speak up and out when we see things that are very obvious violations. and we all I I think it's maybe a good clarification that the board is who who makes that decision. I think it's implied with what's written there now, but maybe that's a a clarif I would feel more comfortable if that were included. County Council, can you weigh in, please? I mean, I have no opinion one way or the other, but we can absolutely make that change if that's all.

You think it would help clarify without that language. What does it mean? Does it mean someone else could define it? It's not how I read it, but I wrote it. So, that may be part of the issue. You may be slightly biased. Are we talking about where it says inappropriate circumstances, it reading instead in board identified or boarded appropriate circumstances? I'm fine with that. It's a similar thing. Just just to identify that it is the board that determines the circumstances. So council in board supported appropriate circumstances. I just want to make sure that's the language.

I'm fine with that language. Okay. Commissioner, do you have a Let me pause here if you don't mind me slowing it down a little. Is there a version that you might be I'm trying to make sure it's not I'm not asking you a judgment call question but clearer language. Yeah. I think in appropriate circumstances as determined by the board is probably very clear as determined by the board. Yeah. Oh, I just heard Commissioner Lily say he liked that. I like that. I didn't say I was going to say

I'm trying to get you to a yes. You're close. That's warm. So I assume Commissioner F, you're comfortable.

Okay. So, Commissioner Willie, um, I joined you when we talked about this previously in not being comfortable with this, and I will say I continue to be uncomfortable about it now that we see the circumstances of the president choosing to take action, which now has seems to have us in this very confused set of words and national attention. We now seem to have a USA created war uh with Iran. And so uh that situation then brings back up the Israel Gaza now Israel Lebanon issue. And uh I have communicated previously being quite concerned about the amount of of time and board capacity that we have uh to take on issues that take us away from the main county business. So that's why I uh remained supportive of the first proposal that we had for the rule of law because it was doing a good job of focusing us on our work as a county government in serving the constituents as worded. I think this um suggested uh addition improved here in the meeting. uh will put

the board remaining as it is between now and the end of the year and into future years in um a continuous cycle of having to decide uh about using the workg group capacity. So that is my concern. Uh it sounds like there are three of you who are comfortable moving forward uh with this and that is that is your choice.

I think it's more important to me that it be approved by all of our board together to make as powerful of a statement as we can. So I would give serious consideration as to whether we would want to pass something 50-0 without the addition versus three to two with the addition. I think that's a weaker position. I also think the chair brings up a good point about sort of foreign policy which I think is definitely mostly outside the county the county's portfolio and position area. And so, you know, if we were going to keep that language in, I I we might even want to clarify that it's related to domestic affairs or something like that.

I would be far more comfortable about that because uh I can't recall the timing, but I think it was before you started your term here. Uh Multma County weighed in on the Israel Gaza situation and um outside forces had a big influence on the uh the political future of of uh the uh congressional race. And so that's why I think

I mean that's not to say that I think the current military activity is justified, makes sense, etc. But when I think about our role in the county and frankly my level of expertise in sort of international politics and what's even legal and not legal and the constitution related to foreign war like that's just not I don't think that's our core competency. It's not our expertise. And so I I think that you know if we wanted would would that change your support chair if if that was clarified to domestic affairs.

I'm just not sure where to include that. So I would need your help the same thing. Um maybe the county council has a recommendation. So looking at the last line of the proposed second amendment uses institutional voice to oppose unconstitutional actions inside the United States that affect county revenue. I like that.

You don't like it? inside the United States. Uh anytime we are going to use our institutional voice to oppose unconstitutional actions when it has not been defined if it's unconstitutional or not, no matter what it is inside the United States or inside our world. Okay? If we want to narrow that down to good old Washington County, okay, fine. But then I'm I'm still trying to figure out what's wrong with the original version. And I don't see anything wrong in the original version. I like it. It's specific, but not this specific. And I think the authors of this did a good job of that. And I don't see any reason at all to change anything of the original version. I think it's important to have five yes votes. So I if that's your sort of final position, I think we should all give that serious consideration.

But I could I am mind interrupting you if I could. I appreciate your uh refocusing um me back to oppose unconstitutional actions because I think one of the things I expressed on the February 24th when we reviewed all of the three then three amendments is I was uncomfortable about us determining constitutionality and which is what the board would be in the position to do. Well, literally every executive order that has been issued has been challenged as to the constitutionality of it.

Well, there's challenged and then there's determined. That's exactly right. And so, we're going to wait for that before we make this before we make this. So, I just wanted to report back as to the effect of that. Could I make

I'd like to make another point here and that is that the if if you if lines number 8 to 10 and I'm looking at the second version. I think you're looking at the first version but we're reading the same verbiage here. Okay. If we stopped right at the purpose here was to demonstrate that we're modeling the behavior of adherence to the constitutional the constitution of the United States and our local constitution in Oregon. What if we just stopped at that point and said um we didn't we didn't go on to say to ensure county practices. We just stopped at the uh be beginning of the third line appearing to the board that the board as the executive body of Washington County has responsibility to model adherence to the Constitution of the United States and the state of Oregon. Period. The rest of it is a little editorial in nature.

Oh, I see what you're suggesting. Yeah. Yeah. And if we would be up to interpretation what modeling that behavior would look like. But nonetheless, it would be in the resolution and order that it was our responsibility to model that behavior. I could I could be on board with that. Jerry, but well, let's maybe he will. Yeah, I stop right here. Yes. Yep.

That's just that was my that's a I'm I'm looking toward uh bringing us to the middle here without throwing it all the amendment. I could I could probably live with that, but I don't understand why we would add that when if you read the rest of the document, it says basically that we're already doing that. Yeah. The reason we would do it, it was offered up as an amendment by a fellow commissioner. That's why.

Yeah. But the power in that in that I I think I I don't want to speak for Commissioner Fi and I want to hear her feedback on this, but I think the primary purpose of that was to talk about the using our institutional voice part which we're talking about cutting. And I am just saying the question was why add it? And I'm saying because out of respect for a fellow commissioner trying to find the middle here.

Thank you, Commissioner Teres. I appreciate that. Um I think I feel like would it be helpful because I think it the way I interpret this rule of law and the recommendation from the community how it started it's really to stand for the constitution to stand up for the constitution so beyond symbolic I feel like commission Absolutely. I don't see what your objectives is other than like the idea is I I really think Commissioner Schneider articulated correctly around using this voice to sort of say we are going to be standing up. I get I do get the concern about the you know getting involved in foreign affairs. I thought that was very u good point to point it out and I think it's good to have um the domestic part sort of focus it in on like what is our role? We're elected to serve uh county residents. So for me it's about like how do we signal to the community that we will do whatever in in our power to make sure that we're upholding the constitution. So I I think the voice of this institution standing up and say what's wrong like those are the what gives power to this statement here um and you know I think um like it's part and so I would like you all to consider I don't know Jerry how do we

we have until 6:30 we can continue talk about we have I'm certain executive session at 3:45. Yeah. So, we have until 3:45. That's my correction. And I do have some board uh information to impart. So, we don't have Yeah, we want Yeah, but I don't like being the opposition, but I'm going to be the opposition. Okay. You're not the only one. I'm re I refer to I think the three of us should pass it. It's fine. I think it's okay. The There's three that support Jason's got a a point, you know. We'll support the original one. Okay. So, just let me read this to you. You you want us to use our voice?

Yes. I'm going to start on line 20 on the front page. Which copy are you on? You with the three on I'm hoping we all have it's the same as what's in the packet starting on page 388 minus the red or the red. Go ahead. How about I read it? Yes, please.

This is the original. It appearing to the board that each member of the board has a sworn has sworn a solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of State of Oregon, and the laws thereof, the charter and the laws of Washington County, and the policies of Washington County. pretty dogone inclusive, I'd say. We are supportive of the Constitution and everything therein. It appearing to the board that the board adopted resolution and order on July 22nd, 2025 titled the matter of adopting a resolution on access and opportunity. and appearing to the board that the RNO holds at its core a commitment to the constitutions of the United States and Oregon along with longstanding federal and state laws protecting individual rights to fair and equal treatment. Is that not pretty clear what we are committing to and swearing to when we do when we're sworn into office?

I don't see any. Yeah, I would agree with that. It that does not include the the parts about using institutional voice, but I think indicated that you're not comfortable with that. So that's the part that an ad in my mind that's a part that gets added if we add this concept or that's the per that's the purpose of adding it. But nothing in this current minus the amendments keeps at any time the board determining by a majority that it wants to use voice. That's true too.

So to say that it does would be factually incorrect. Yeah. So um board could do that at any time whether it's written in here or not.

So I to join you I think I have on multiple occasions expressed my concern uh with the amendment even the amendment that we've reworked. What I'm also gathering here is that we're at a place where we're not going to have a 50 vote. So, I'll just drop that from the consideration. At least that's my reading of the the votes here. Where are we? So, we are back to uh it the version discussing and you guys can tell me I'm wrong discussing the uh three different amendments that uh we have in today's packet with rule of law with all three amendments. So, there's if you go to page 48 of 59 from our business packet at least for this one. It appearing to the board that the board it's the one we just talked about the original amendment two. Um so we know we don't have agreement on that. Uh and then there's amendment number one. It appearing to the board that the immigrant community dot dot dot uh and observing federal immigration officers denying immigrants their fourth rights through unauthorized searches and seizures. And then amendment three uh adds a resolved and order that the

Washington County Board of Commissioners declares its support for S3470, the Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act. As we discussed on the 24th, we usually uh consider federal legislations through our normal um government relations work and letters of support versus in resolutions and orders. So, Commissioner 5, these are your amendments. Okay. So, you'll need to um move it forward.

Thank you. Uh so that second amendment is the one that starts line 16 appearing to the board that the immigrant community in Washington County has observed federal immigration officers the one that just chair Harrington read off. Um, what I would like to give support on this one. Um, what can I address to get to? Yes. And in terms of Commissioner Willie, what you said, what's missing? This is completely something that's missing from them. Um, so I'll start. I go back to I didn't mean to cut you off, though.

Oh, no.

Okay. So um as I said on February 24th um I think this does have the improvement of immigrant community uh making the observations. Uh that's a large statement, but it is community members deciding uh on the denying of the fourth amendment rights and community members deciding on authorized searches and seizures um and denying the first amendment. So that's um it's an unusual policy statement uh that we would be uh including a statement of for lack of a better term thirdhand potentially thirdand uh not legally qualified um judgment. While I do uh support everyone's uh lived experience and they're saying that in their opinion or in opinion, expertise, uh experience, they feel they've experienced these things. Uh I'm concerned about a legal judgment and I'm also uh influenced by the uh federally convened meeting um I attended this morning which I'll speak to later. I don't um I said quite a bit the last time we discussed this on why I didn't support the other two and I I don't necessarily need to re rehash and restate all of that but my concerns remain the same.

So you are not in support of of the other two? No of this one that she just read about the immigrant community. Correct. And I and I really each remain concerned.

Yeah. I went through in a lot of detail about how that's a lot of jud in the last discussion. It's a lot of sort of judgment calls, decisions that would end up being made by a court. The use of I think words that aren't even like it says I think I clarified too. It says unauthorized searches. I don't think that's what's actually in the Fourth Amendment. I think it's unreasonable searches. So, there's like there's just a whole bunch of issues with the that that I just to me are um just way beyond what I want to put in a resolution in order trying to speak to what we're trying to speak to here. I um I agree with what both of you have said and I will go back to my other statement that I would like to see this resolution and order be about again the constitution and how that moves forward through time. And so that's that that was the other piece that um I mentioned previously. So I'm just reiterating that. But I would I would um I would not be in support of this. I mean the board just on the face of it like the board itself like that's this this body of five people right

I don't know of a situation where this body has gone out and observed that what's being described there as an act like that's just not we haven't even seen one alto together to to even make that statement collective statement yeah it's just for one I think it'd be we'd be on pretty iffy ground to make the conclusion anyway based on just observing a a situation. But even so, we've not all observed a situation.

But the other aside from you're reducing it down to facts of whether or not that have happened, I appreciate that. I I also think that the the essence of what we're trying to get at here is around the support of the constitution and and that that is that is the most important piece to me. I believe that this these circumstantial situations may present themselves and we lean back on this RNO to address those circumstances. Agree with that.

But this one isn't saying we observed. It's saying that the community, the immigrant community, and I think we've had a presentations, not a presentation, but public testimonies where people showed up in a critical number telling us this is happening. This is a way to recognize I want to make it clear that I'm not denying that. That's

but that's all it's saying. And if we get rid of it and don't include whatever gets passed, then we are denying it. And we are denying recognition of the community where this whole thing came to us because the community members this group that submitted this proposal rule of law support the rule of law. That group came and recommended that the immigrant community is under attack. Here's what's happening in the streets of Washington County. The rule of law isn't being followed. please protect the community and institute these rule of law. What got in front of the board distilled and really got rid of a lot of crucial information. And what I'm trying to do as a one board member who self-identifies with that community, who's been attacked, who's had parents that died, is to say, let's recognize the immigrant community. Where do we mention that community in this rule of law? Where do we say that we're going to stand up for this community and protect them? I don't see myself. How can you pass something very this is it's embarrassing to pass something like this? You either go back to the original recommendation the community recommended and say we'll pass that. But if you want to pass this one that has both two two commissioners, one commissioner and chair put in a lot of effort and staff then you have to know you have to go back to the original. Why did we start this? This came about because certain community are targeted no matter the constitution isn't being followed. People are being dragged in the streets. Many of us are carrying our passports. How many times do you need to hear that? So, I think we need to you can't go around the immigrant community. Those

cannot be words that you're scared to see. And this this isn't this isn't I I've talked to I don't see the legal ramifications of saying, "Hey, you said this in an RNO, you know, where you this is symbolic. I don't think any anybody is going to turn into this an ordinance that says we're going to institute these rules uh for ICE to follow for the federal government to follow. So what what we're trying to do with this Arno is to signal to the community that we are against what's happening in the streets of Washington County. And I don't see so I I don't know how we work how we work this but we cannot be afraid to infuse the immigrant community into this R. Now this can't be how many of you leave this board. We have to figure out we have to go back to the basics. The basics of this rule of law idea was one community group is being attacked. So, how do we protect that? It says a lot of good words here, but we're still afraid to distill that and say we're going to hone it down to the community that are impacted. Jerry, how do we do that?

Okay. I'm going to my opposition to what you're saying is that why didn't we do this in 2020 when the African-Ame was being attacked. Why didn't we do this before when I'm sure other um other individuals were being discriminated against? We are very very narrowly focused against the immigrant community and I certainly agree that at this point in time it's the immigrant community that's being attacked. But five years from now, it'll be something else. Five years ago,

it was something else. So why would we put something like this in here when we're basically saying already that we are going to defend these things and we don't need to be specific to the communities that you're referring to. But this came about because of that. And I will tell you 2020 I with all due respect as much as I disagree with our current federal administration there wasn't a mandate that says go round up all African-Americans.

So I there wasn't any mandates. Uh right now what we have is an executive order that says immigrants deportation ICE you have unlimited you know. So that's what's what the

so to at least part of what I heard you say, right? I I heard you say a lot and I tried to write down what I thought I heard you say. Uh but towards one of your questions um about uh our needing to signal that we're against what is happening. Um I believe that lines 12 through 15 do achieve that. It appearing to the board that the board has observed the growing power of the executive branch of the federal government and frequent re recent actions by the executive branch that appear inconsistent with the ideas of separation of powers, federalism and the rule of law. And this

hence why I put my amendment If I could finish, please. Uh, this resolution and order is our instilling what we as a county board of or a county government define as the rule of law as well. Um, so that we're being very clear. So I believe that statement about the the actions that we're seeing do in are in fact inclusive of what you were looking for.

So I'm pretty disappointed about where we've gotten as a board and uh unwillingness of multiple parties to try to come to some sort of consensus. And the whole purpose in this I think is or one of the key tenants is to be consistent and all be supportive of what we're trying to say. I don't I I've revised my thought again and I do not think that it should be voted on where it's getting less than five votes. So, if we don't have that on some content, then, you know, as much as as much time as I've spent on this, I don't want to see it move forward and get a 4-1 or 3-2 vote. Um, I think that just sends the wrong message. It's confusing. It's unhelpful. And if we're at a point where we just can't move forward, which is what I'm gathering from this in a way that we can all collectively agree, then maybe we just uh keep the work so we can potentially use it in the future when others uh when we can get to five votes. But I I just I strongly urge us to to not send a divided message on this. Um, I'd recommend we move on and maybe someday this can be considered. I don't want to do that, but that's where I think we're at. But it appears that the original version is not going to get your 50 correct.

No other speaking for you. So if I am wrong, please correct me. But you would not support the original version as currently stands. I would recommend the amendments. Okay. And we're saying no to the amendments from what I hear. At least 50. We're not supporting that. So then the only

Are we not supporting the one from the county council? I thought that had three. Are you still on five? Okay. I I just what is the message when we're picking something with this content and voting on it four to one or 3 to2? Like what? It's just I think that's absurd and I understand why we are where we are, but let's just move on with other county work if we if we can't get to 50. So, I guess Commissioner Willy's question to you, Commissioner Fi, is if you raise all those during the during the formal business meeting and none of them get adopted, are you are you planning to support it or not?

No. Okay. I think we're done with this conversation. That's my opinion. Well, I was, you know, I missed a side conversation. Well, because Katherine and I were opposed to this initially, but if we would agree to the original one plus the legal where the dot is after Oregon. So it says appearing to the board that the board as executive body of Washington County has a responsibility to model adherence to the Constitution of the United States in the state of Oregon. Period. If we add that sentence in there, it would need to be semicolon and instead of a period, but

okay, then that's the only modification that I think that I would be agreeable to, not the second and not the third. And it I asked Katherine if she would agree with me on that and she did. So now we're four. Would you accept if that's the only revision to No, because you have the the institutional voice is the piece about it.

Let's move on with the county's work and then this we can move on. We've done a ton of work on this. We've had a ton of different to recognize when we're not going to move forward. How would you include it? Implied. Well, I can I ask county question county council a procedural question. Uh given that we have an agenda posted with the original um resolution and order. Uh, how would we go about tableabling as I believe that is what Commissioner Snyder is suggesting.

We're not in your business meeting. You can pull it from the agenda here and we can discuss time to bring it back to your board. Yeah, that would be when we think we can get to a 50 vote on some content. And I think I think per the charter it only takes two commissioners to pull or is that just for the consent agenda? No, that's for the whole

I'm okay with that. I'm okay with Jason's

Okay. And I want to say thank you to uh Commissioner Snyder because I believe that having these types of disagreements in the public is not good for the commission or for or or for getting to a a positive outcome. And I do want to say I'm very sorry to the to our our public this Okay. So, uh we have 25 minutes for the remainder board and leadership communication.

May I offer something, chair? I only need about five minutes with your board for the executive session and nobody else is coming. Okay, if it's helpful, I can start with leadership.

Great. Okay. So, um I am going to um start off with the federal update. Um there are proposed changes to um what's called SAM, which stands for the system for award management. Um another acronym that we're hearing is SAM.gov. gov. Um, and now that I've learned that I can't unhear sam.gov. Um, the at first and morning can attest, I was really confused because I thought it was some um website that what I was supposed to be familiar with, but no, now I am. The federal government has proposed new rules affecting the system for award management or SAM. And this is the registration system required for any entity applying or for or receiving federal funding. Washington County currently maintains 15 SAM registrations. Under the proposed rules, the county would be required Go ahead. on the so registration for any entity applying for or receiving federal funds. So it's if if it could be through for an organization receiving federal funds through another agency even. So for example, CDBG funds to a local area government or a service provider as we have in our contract. So, subreipients. It can also um be for other community um based organizations, nonprofits that receive direct federal funding. So, I'm going to um focus this just on county, but I want

to highlight this is impactful for anyone that relies on federal funding. And we have heard from CBOS their concerns. Commissioner,

you've answered. Okay. Under the proposed rule, and please interrupt me because I know this is new information and ask questions. Under the proposed rules, the county would be required to attest compliance with several federal executive orders related to diversity, equity, inclusion, immigration, and anti-terrorism. Because Oregon limits support of federal immigration enforcement activities at a local and state level, there is a concern that the county may not be able to make all the required attestations. If that were the case, our eligibility for federal funding could be at risk. At this time, we do not know whether the county and or other governments and organizations would be required to immediately reertify if rules are adopted. So what I mean by that is if the federal government adopts no new rules, we do not know if current agreements would be at risk. Okay. Should I pause there?

I'm confused. And I'm confused because I don't know if what you're bringing here is a new set of circumstances. I Yes, it is. Okay. It's a new set of circumstances. And and um does this mean that we're going to have to go back and look at what we did with our former RNO that last July? Uh not the RNO. This is in essence a new process. I see Alex wanting to jump in. Please do. This is proposed rule making. Okay. It's not a final rule. It's still in notice and comment through GAO. The notice and comment period ends March 30th.

Okay. Let me kind of Okay, that's what I was getting to. Um, so this is our current situation and I now I want to ground us where we are on time and I want to give huge kudos to Aaron Doyle, Marty Kyle and Courtney Van Duke Dre and William Bass. The board has met William once their grants coordinator. They have been working extremely closely on this and started preparing a draft comment letter. As Alex said, we are currently in the rule making timeline. Comments must be submitted by March 30th. We are at March 17th. So the next step is staff is going to work on that letter. We will be sending that letter to your board and staff are available for for one-on- ones should you have any concerns or questions. So we can ensure that the county submits a letter by the March 30th deadline. Chair

County Council, do we have the ability to have an emergency meeting between now and March 30th? Could you look into that, too? Yes. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner. Sorry. Well, I just like some of what was just described on the face of it seems not legal um under federal law and I I guess I want to make sure that what we're that at least part of what we're planning to comment on is on that.

We're not that far into it yet. What I will say is your spidey senses are correct. much of this may not be legal and like many actions from this administration, it will likely be widely challenged. Yeah. One of the uh pieces of homework that we have is to go back and figure out what the state's portion of that is going to be. Okay. Because we've had other instances where the state has challenged certain federal executive orders. And I just want to make sure we're commenting on the lack of legality if if that's

this is this is new so we're not that far. So and on that I want to be very clear about that though the state has been um the state can represent the state. So through the um through how the county proceeds we have to um also be looking at the county's um position as an entity not just looking to the state. So, um, chair, since you brought up the question about scheduling a, um, an emergency meeting, um, given the amount of questions that you have, if that's something that your board would like to do, I would suggest that we move forward in given given the potential large scope. I will also note um that I am aware that the Oregon Association of Nonprofits I mean I have gotten the order of the words correctly however is currently they're currently um issuing their own comments and we are going to be collecting that and can share that to your board as well. So, while I don't remember the rolling agenda off of the top of my head, I believe I was after your trip of the 18th, whatever. I think I was the only member of the board that had indicated I might be away the week of spring break. I do not have any determined dates. This is so important that I will participate in person uh for any if we're able to have an emergency meeting because this is our not being able to qualify for funds based upon these proposed rules would be devastating to what we do as a county

government as well as devastating to at least all those 3,400 people or 1300 I've forgotten the numbers from last June and July uh uh who receive housing to date. So um I did not put a put specific vacation in, but I would it would if we're doing it in person, I would much prefer next if it's a Tuesday Thursday next Thursday instead of Tuesday. Well, we could also uh Yeah, I'm just thinking through what parts can be virtual and Yeah. And you're talking about the 26th. Yes. So,

if it needed to be next, thank you for contributing that. Um uh very much. We 26 or 27 for me would be options. Those are both those are fine. I don't have anything on 27 either except for a CWS. I I will make myself available. I'm here.

Okay. So, as we look to schedule this, I want to be very clear. Your board may have questions that we may not be able to answer. So, um I just uh we will we will do the best we can. Um and at least um a conversation will help you feel comfortable in submission of comments. by the 30th and there will probably be more unanswered questions um that you have. I'm just rather than just waiting until we get this we have this meeting one every day, is there something I could be reading in advance or could you send me a link to something so I can

catch up on what it staff staff will put something together for your board? Yeah, Marne Kyle is the staff member that's actually taking the lead on this from county administration office and she's been taking the lead on the uh coordination of federal. This will be an executive session. Um we will deter we will Alex and I will work with the chair on how to best schedule this after staff convene um based on your board's questions and feedback. Okay. Anything else for leaders? I do.

I do. Can I talk about St. Patrick's Day? Um, let me let me uh switch gears a bit. Um, our team at Bonnie Hayes Animal Shelter adopted out 10 dogs during our Lucky Dog Lucky You event. Um, St. Patrick's Day themed adoption this past weekend. The event which took place March 13th and March 14th was very wellreceived by the community. This is the type of information I don't always share during my leadership update. But um just as chair, you lifted up um people and um making sure housing matters. Um taking care of our furry friends also matters. The event will be highlighted in the March edition of our animal tales newsletter coming out later this week. Continuing on the Ireland um theme, I will be leaving on Saturday um and returning the following Sunday. I will be traveling to Dublin for MMA as part of a global exchange. Washington County does not pay for any of the travel, lodging, meals, or cost related to this event. The event is fully paid by and my personal expenses during this event. It is a global learning exchange. So in addition to Ireland, there will be other European countries um um also representation from Africa, Australia, uh New Zealand, Canada and the United States. So I look forward to learning and being in um friendship with other peers from across the world and also um conducting an MMA board meeting during that time. um over the week

typically the dates then for you would be the 21st which is this Saturday this Saturday and then the 29th so then you're gone during the time that that's why I was going Arie Kyle would be covering for me she will be serving as acting okay um and yep we'll just leave it there and returning on the 29th the other cups correct yep okay

um and then also just want to make note Note, um there is has been a new location determined for the volunteer appreciation event. As your board is aware, we do annually bring volunteers together um to celebrate them and their efforts um in giving to Washington County. The new location will be at PCC Willow Creek. Um uh so just heads up um we the change in location does not impact um the budget. And once again, it is on Wednesday, April 29th from 5:30 to 7:30. I have a question. Why did the event move from the wingspan? Because of scheduling challenges.

Scheduling challenges and availability of the wingspan. Okay. PCC is a considerably smaller than what we were using because everybody we didn't use the whole space and the the full multi-purpose room is twice the depth of this. So take this and add I'm I'm familiar with the PCC room just might be I think we'll be crowded and that's what we want. We've always appreciated um recognizing our volunteers and having their volunteers show up and so we like to have a a big group there. I just wanted to be respected.

Well, we did fit into the Washington streets. That was right. That was cozy. The other thing between those I in the past uh some of our volunteers have brought their pets. Is it um is that okay at the PCC Philips doing this? I am so glad Philip's behind me because I was going to say great question. We will get back to you. Yeah, I just because that seems to be a popular. I think they're all service dogs that are brought. That's all I have. Thank you. Alex, anything from you?

I will dominate my time back to your board. Thank you. So, who would like to go first from the

last Friday? Um, I had my briefing with Mayor Drake from Durham on the vehicle registration fee work and also a county briefing on security and the explore Twalon Valley discussions that uh are ongoing. Yesterday I was at the Washington County Sheriff's Office recognition event and swearing in ceremony. I will just mention others that were there may mention other things but I did want to just point out that we had a very significant event that occurred last May and it involved the recovery from an Amber Alert that we as a county were one of the only counties I think that manages that process ourselves. And in this instance, that was significant. And we um the the um children that have been abducted were recovered pretty rapidly. And the Washington State trooper from Wanache area was actually in attendance and received recognition as part of this. And that was pretty neat to see. Um let's see, we were all at the budget committee last night. Uh earlier today, the chair and I were both at a HUD homelessness forum and I've got a lot of notes and probably a lot to say about that at some point, but not today. It was really some interesting content and a and a broad community leader dialogue that I uh I think was very valuable. Uh this Thursday, there's an explore Walton Valley board meeting. Uh, I'll be meeting with Majority Leader Bowman for just a normal check-in since he's also the state rep in uh or yeah, in in my area, not in his role as majority leader. And then the WA policy conference, I plan to attend that. I don't know if anyone else is going on

Friday. Uh, we'll be doing a debrief on the CWS general manager recruitment process, I think, so far. And then the public safety coordinating council has a meeting Friday afternoon with a tour for the whole group of the new family peace center to follow the meeting. So u that is what's going on. I am planning a pretty low-key week next week and kind of acting as a station, but I will make myself available hopefully. Just I ask not on Tuesday of next week or Monday. All I got. We're on this one.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. I can go next. Um yesterday I attended the the WCCCC meeting yesterday and um one of the topic on the agenda was the transportation development tax expenditure. This was a request uh from city of Sherwood for projects on uh Arrow Road Street, Arrow Street. Sorry, I don't know I said row Arrow Street uh Oregon Street and the Sunset Boulevard and Timber uh lanes intersection and this was a request for 6.63 million that will come to our board. The board uh the C WCCCC approved that and then uh it was our annual meeting. So, we had a bit of a one-on-one overview, WCCCC 101 overview. This is a tradition that every year there's an in-person meeting and then we go over the bylaws and uh just revisit some of the histories of WCCC, how we got started, and uh it was a really I always appreciate it because it's a refresher. Uh Stephen Roberts and his team did a great job. And then we had a really a robust presentation from statewide transportation improvement program, the STIP. Um Chris Ford from ODOT came to the meeting and gave an update of the 2027 2030 statewide transportation improvement program and some of the development that took place. Um and really honed in on uh the gains for Washington County and for Washington County residents. Um and then uh obviously we had a legislative session recap. What uh a smaller smaller presentation because there was Carly and the city of Hillsboro different cities that presented what are

their gains and losses were from this short legislative session. But Carly came and really did a great job of sort of doing an overview of what's key specific to um to WCCC and it was a good conversation. And then uh this week uh we have JPAC and I want to just review with you some of the items that are on the agenda. Um, but it's I don't see any um action items, but we're going to have the MTIP uh public uh review uh draft summary and public hearing on that one. And then uh we're going to get a Are you ready for this? Drum roll. The interstate bridge replacement program update. That project is still going on. Uh no bridge yet though. That's a joke. But it's we're going to get an update tomorrow and really look forward to what solutions are being suggested and see how how close we are. And then drum roll again, we're going to get a state legislative session recap one more time this week and sort of just talk about the sort of bit of a regional recap and wins and losses from the short session. And then uh the the big thing that's happening at the um JPAC this week is uh 2028 regional transportation plan work plan scoping kickoff. So uh you know RTP is starting their kickoff. Uh so this is something that happens every five years. So we're we're here um and get to contribute. So, I'll bring my learnings and if there's some uh detours that are going to happen from what's been in the past or what's moving forward now. So, I'll keep you posted on that. And in terms of uh something that something else that I wanted to

highlight with my one minute here is that I went to um there were other board members here too and hopefully can give some take on. I attended the Kaza Empo.

Empero emperero. My spelling is off today. Um, and this is a $2 million Washington County invested uh to Central Cultural to upgrade a hotel that turned into a housing. I I really appreciated seeing um you know how dignified everyone is housing people and getting people off the streets into housing. Uh it was a really good fascinating to see all the improvements that they made and how they're continue to improve. So $2 million from Washington County well spent is what I have to say and uh Chair Harington you did a great job of your remarks in that. Everybody was great. I donate my 12 seconds back. Hey. Um, last week I spent uh two days along with Commissioner Snyder. Uh, it and the clean water services team on the uh interviewing the semi-finalist for the GM position and it went very smoothly, very well. I was pleased with that. During kind of during the middle of that time, I uh left and went out. I didn't miss anything, but I went to the Washington County Chamber of Commerce public policy committee to talk about the vehicle registration fee. And that conversation uh Commissioner Snider joined online. I thought it went very well. It was very smooth and uh

agreed.

The questions were were good questions, but I think we're all learning how to anticipate those questions and start with some uh some information that that helps people understand. Uh after our Thursday roundt I went over to Forest Grove to Mayor Wel's state of the city address and that was well done. It was in the theater in the grove and uh it was there that I learned about uh uh fact that David Marzili is going to be moving into the chief of police role at Forest Grove. So very very proud of him. He's a great guy. Was one of the first that I met when I first came here. He was in charge of the uh Bethany station. So I got to know him in district two and really think a lot of him. So I I did look at Jesse Vanderin and say you owe us one. So So and I made that really clear. Um the I also attended the Centro's Kasa Emparro open house on Friday and I reflected on the fact that when I when I was first commissioner I was on the Centro Cultural Board for several years and it was during that time that we purchased that location and it was one of the first locations to be purchased and I remember having a little anxiety about whether or not this organization could be in this space and do this type of work and Centro has done an outstanding job in leveraging their dollars and moving toward more more housing opportunities for people and it was evident evidenced there as well. Uh yesterday was our budget committee update meeting. I thought that went very well. I was pleased there. I was a little worried about some of the fear that might be in instilled in our our new budget committee members about the size of our budget book and those types of things, but I think I

think everybody responded well. Tomorrow I have a check-in with the county auditor and Thursday I'm attending the WA uh 2026 policy conference as well. There's also an RDPO meeting on Friday and uh Friday I have a de debrief session along with uh Commissioner Snider on the uh semi-final recruitments. Um also we're still trying to schedule the and Friday is the window for doing this with the um vehicle registration fee meetings with for the Forest Grove mayor and the Gaston mayor. But when we're when those are done, I think we're we're done. So, we've got we've we've hit all of the targets and it's

So, I got mine done first, but you did. Yes, you did. Just but M is just telling me just by a little only by a little bit. Yeah. But I think the good news is that it's it's the conversations have been wellreceived. They're not necessarily always in favor, but they the conversations have been good conversations. So now we will move on to where requested going to the city councils as well. Uh that is the end of my report.

Okay. Um last week uh we had a 7 trail foundation board meeting and I think it's important to note that um my focus is always on the Washington County side of things which is about 20ome miles um the first 20 from banks on out but uh we are we have built officially some trail in Wheeler little wheeler on the coast they have been very supportive of that lots and lots of volunteers coming out there So, we have actually trail alongside uh the Oregon Coast Scenic Railway that ends at Wheeler current anyway. And so, um so yeah, that's that's been a good thing. We we certainly uh have a number of portions of the trail that are in consideration, but um it takes a lot of money and we're still trying to uh build our learning month which is here in Manning or somewhere between Manning and Sun Stewart Park. So, depends on how much money we're able to get. Um on Wednesday I had lunch uh with Banks Mayor Marshia Kirk and got an update again on um the roundabout on Highway Six and certainly the development on both uh east and west sides of Banks. They're anticipating they have a population of 1900 right now and within I don't know how many years five seven years they're going to go 6,000. So there triple and you have to remember that North Plains had some of the similar growth and continues to uh have some housing out there. So both of my little small communities um in rural Washington County are growing. Um if you remember I left early last Thursday to

go to the thriving metropolis of Cottage Grove for the Association of Oregon and California counties quarterly meeting. It's always good. Their uh their forest is in the Bureau of Land Management. So, it's managed by the federal government, which is considerably different when than uh the the trust lands, which is where most of our forest is. and we deal with state and but both feds and state um timberlands are um under stress right now for trying to find out what a um a reasonable harvest amount would be and how you manage that. In the BLM uh areas, counties, they have the SHS money, which is the schools money that they get from the feds. Uh Widen was very supportive of that for all those years. Got it reinstated. Um the messaging that the AOCC is communicating to the feds is that if you would just allow us to harvest a portion more, you could keep your SHs.

And so that's a $30 million um option. So um they're continuing to communicate that. Um yeah. And thanks Jason on the update on the sheriff's employee swearing in recognition yesterday. We also at the end of it we got to view a video of drone activity catching um a person stealing uh a bunch of stuff out of Target and running and jumping on a bus and all kinds of stuff. Had we not had the drone, um, we would have had a much more difficult none of that would have probably played out the way it would did. And instead, they were apprehended within 10 minutes.

Yeah. Off of a try bus that had left the area. Wow. Yeah, it was it was it was very interesting. And the drone has the ability to lock on the bus. So, it'll follow the bus. It also has the ability to lock on the individual. And so, um, drone drone activity is definitely the new is very cool and I'm very happy that we have invested in that. Um not only that we we save lives I think um by using that new technology. So that's all I got.

Great. Um, I along with commissioners Willie and Snyder attended the sheriff's office swearing in an employee recognition ceremony and uh I brought the brochure in to share with the two of you who were not able to make it. of this morning along with Commissioner Snyder, I attended a uh HUD hosted meeting, a forum that convened key stakeholder uh regional stakeholders for a discussion on HUD's evolving strategy to address homelessness. Dr. Robert Marbut, senior advisor to HUD Secretary Scott Turner, shared federal priorities, funding strategies, and implementation opportunities, followed by a long extensive, uh, Q&A and discussion. Uh, two of our staff experts, uh, Jess Larson and Katie's whose last name I always forget, sorry, uh, were also in attendance. Uh, and my key takeaways in no particular order. And by the way, they set this up as a by invitation only. Press was excluded in order to ensure we are having a frank conversation. So in no particular order, the key takeaways I I took from it. We have to focus on outcomes, not outputs. Stop the lawsuits. They're holding up funding getting to community.

What lawsuits? All lawsuits relative to the federal government. Is this for example the lawsuits that our attorney general is bringing? Yes. Uh there was a lot of conversation about uh work being done collaboratively across federal agencies. So it's not just one particular agency.

Thank you. uh emphasis on the next word reform away from the housing first strategy. And there was one other policy approach that went by so fast I didn't capture the name right. Uh fourth takeaway, treatment, treatment, treatment. I feel very good about the efforts uh the investments we've made here in Washington County. I made note of the fact that no sooner did we open them up that they're already at capacity when we had hoped in earlier years we might have capacity to contribute uh bed space, treatment space for for example Clackamus County residents. Uh and lastly comes in three parts. Continuum of care or COC reforms. Uh we have to make sure for COC boards and meetings that we're inviting faith-based communities and business as well as law enforcement to be at the table. Uh having COC's collaborate, right? We have three different COC's in our region or merge given extra points. Oh, and I forgot to write down another matter. Um, third under COC reforms is mayor's matter. So, you better make sure uh you've got at least one mayor there.

There was an emphasis on elected officials being involved in these processes was really

Yep. Um, and dang it, the other uh key takeaway that I didn't write here. Um, oh yes, that um if the um if the COC's don't apply or the counties don't apply uh that the uh federal no and so forth have always allowed for individual service providers to apply directly. um which the the number of times that through the um 14 questions that were asked uh the number of times that um that point was made uh did also impress me uh and comes everyone in the room already knew about the rules that Ms. Angie went over and the comment period, but it makes uh her summary of the impact of that um much more real to me that we could see a totally different variety of service provider or nonprofit uh applications for dollars than we have historically seen in our region. So, um, a lot to keep up on. I really appreciated Commissioner Snyder, uh, as well as our staff attending, but particularly Commissioner Snyder as one reason why I wanted to make sure that, uh, I wasn't just the only one invited as elected officials is because of this

scheme continuing. Did they me ask a question? Sure. Did they Oh, if I could finish because I didn't continuing after my term is up is my point. Sorry. Did they talk about the rule making that's going on right now at HUD for the mixed eligibility status? Not at all. They did make mention of uh being on board with uh the the federal approach.

There's a huge emphasis on really making sure we recognize that um both mental health and substance use disorders are driving like their data nationwide very clearly indicates that that's driving 75% of houselessness and that some of the strategies we've implemented including communities that have gone kind of pushing um permanent support of housing that that's not necessarily been effective um in the ways that were expected and that cities that and Portland's one of them cities that have been much more aggressive um in re in the last year or two with sort of offering the the tougher either treatment or jail approach to stuff have had a lot of success

deflection is that what I mean we would call it deflection but I think they're talking about it much more broadly than just deflection I just was I think it's pretty clear. And I um I want to compliment um Metro Counselor Christine Lewis for um bringing up a a question about um homelessness tied to eviction prevention uh and loss of or economic homelessness. Uh and that is not um a key theme It's not borne out in the federal data. Yes, that's the that's the

that that's the bottom line. Like they they can attribute a low I'm sorry high singledigit percentage attributed to that. He didn't say the exact number but less than 10% and more than a couple percent. But it was all economic a hard

that that's the root cause and he was really I mean the speaker was really pushing on you know our goal should be with the 75% lifetime recovery and self- sustaining sort of solutions in the long run. And he was really talking about how we have to have meaningful conversations and act on the reality of a lot of the data and we haven't always been doing that as a country. And could I ask just a a really focusing on the outcome of uh reducing homelessness uh by u mental health and substance use disorder?

Was that accepted well by the popular by the group of Portlanders? I don't think that was the intent of the forum rather to emphasize that this is the direction of the agency. I looked at both the medical director of Central City Concern. There was also a psychiatrist in the room too at the table and neither one of them pushed back on those really. In fact, I kind of saw naughty. Yeah. I mean, it would it so that it that was actually interesting to me.

We also got lots of Peter Ducker quotes. But those parties that we went through with the establishment of the SHS program u there's the medical approach which follows what Commissioner Schneider said versus the more the community advocacy. Thank you both both for being there. That's really interesting.

It was pretty fascinating. And I did not give um recognition to uh sorry to Christopher Patterson who is the regional administrator for HUD region 10 which is uh Idaho, Alaska, Oregon and Washington. So it Jason um you and I are going to tag team this new committee through SHS. It sounds to me like and What I understand is one of the first challenges is is key performance indicators and it sounds to me like there was some of that that came out of this.

There was a thread around that. This will inform what my comments might be about those key performance indicators. Well, and it's the first time, and if I heard you correctly, it's the first time I've actually heard someone pushing back on housing first because that from day one in our SHS money, housing first has been that that was definitely being pushed back on from a data data support perspective at the federal level. I did not or we did not have the benefit of knowing what our professional staff said about the presentation today. So I want to be careful about this is hot off the press.

I want to be careful about drawing conclusions about that. Um I we can state what was said but you know but the federal administration wants to move away from housing first strategy. Well, that was an

they were just acknowledging with data that and this the speaker has worked in this space and in this role since 2005 I think like he served like a bunch of presidential administrations and so you know that was there was just a an element of like we've seen what happens with over time longitudinally with housing first and if you're not doing the other and you're not acknowledging the 70 the 75% are not well served by housing first. That was that was a message I got. I don't

and I'm not sure how many federal administrations he has worked under as opposed to with uh he was uh former prom of the city of San Antonio. Yeah. Mayor. Yes. Pro mayor. Yeah. uh he's a political appointee. Take it with a grain of salt. Well, I tell you what, some of the stuff that I heard right here is uh is to me spot on. Uh because I we're four years into this and uh we've we've seen successes in Washington County, but obviously

county and Portland have not. They've gone exactly the opposite direction. And so that's going to be part of the challenge. They've got some newer traction happening though and that's also but I think a good job the Portland metro chamber has been questioning housing first for a number of years not all

right I mean they were on board with the SHS program in the development and the early years but as the challenges continued um and the overall crisis of homelessness increased I believe they were more open to questioning the housing first strategy. Um, another key thing we should just probably mention is that uh the impact on children in this space and what the department of education is sort of working on needs to be handled really almost uh differently than just an isolated adult or two adults. Um the outcomes and the issues there are way different than just another generation of potential homelessness.

Uh that was yes it is a significant risk factor for the future. You know I I hope not. If I could just make a comment here. We have been defunding mental health services since I've said this before since the 70s. And for for us to expect any other outcome in the behavioral health or in the behavioral arena is crazy. Yeah, we're just

other thing that we have been doing for a very long we we know what's happened with our uh the presence of drugs in our in our society. That's as good. But we also have the economic pressures that we currently feel. So I'm not I'm not saying that 75% isn't a I'm not refuting the data. I'm just saying those are it's hard to separate all of those things from one another as well.

And his his comments about the economic were specific to rent. And I wanted I didn't end up getting to make this comment, but I would have pushed back on just overall income inequality and the role that that's playing in all this. We didn't get I didn't get to say that or get to that point, but we've got wage gap as well as the other two issues that have been brewing for a very very long and getting worse. based upon um some answers after you had to leave. Uh left me with the impression that

the way he would have approached your potential question was to say the data tells us that we need to get back to substance use treatment treatment mental health. I have no doubt that would have been his answer. There has to be an open door to economic health as well after those treatments. Sorry, that was not part of the paradigm as he was referring to homelessness.

So, do we have any other board communication for today? So, uh, we will adjourn this work session and reconvene for the Clean Water Services, uh, board meeting at 5:30 and the Washington County Board of Commissioners, uh, business meeting at 6:30. We have, we do have a scheduled exact session. We're going to take I'm so sorry. Thank you so much. Um so that will adjourn our public portion. But first we need to have a motion to adjourn to executive session pursuant to OS1 192.660 sub 2 subh for the purposes of discussing potential litigation.

So moved. Second. All those in favor please. Thank you. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously five to zero. So we'll give uh those not