Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sherwood council, police advisory board weigh voter funding options to sustain public services
Summary
At a June 17 work session the council heard a police advisory board presentation on a possible water‑meter fee or levy to shore up public safety and other city services; staff was asked to provide polling, cost estimates and ballot pathways including charter amendment and levy options.
Sherwood City Council and members of the Police Advisory Board discussed options on June 17 for a citywide funding mechanism to sustain public safety and related services as the city faces rising costs and flat revenues. Board members and staff outlined a fee tied to residential water meters, a possible levy, and other structures; council requested further analysis, polling and cost estimates before referring any measure to voters.
A presenter summarized the fee scenario using the city's current billing base: 7,256 residential water meters and 1,334 accessory dwelling units (ADUs). He said a fee of $12.50 per meter would generate "just over a million," while $14 would bring in about $1.28 million. The briefing noted the fee design could be adjusted to include commercial accounts through meter‑based or other equivalency units, and that legal and ballot timing issues would affect implementation.
Police Advisory Board member Chris West told council the board favored a fee structure because it provides a steady revenue stream without repeated ballot measures, and emphasized the need to preserve current service levels: "We thought it should be all about maintaining sustaining the current level of services citizens expect." Chris West and other presenters argued the city cannot absorb rising personnel and technology costs indefinitely; staff said 38% of police costs are currently borne by the general fund and that the average sworn officer costs roughly $167,000 per year (supervisor costs were cited at about $250,000).
Councilors debated fee versus levy approaches and messaging. Several councilors and a consultant retained by the advisory board stressed the importance of polling and a coordinated public education campaign before a ballot referral. The consultant advised, "You need to do polling," and recommended targeting communications timed to when voters are likely to remember the issue, and suggested an October mailer for voter education. Legal counsel and staff briefed the council on thresholds: fees or charter amendments placed on a May special election may face a 50% approval threshold under the city rules, a hurdle some council members called significant.
Council members discussed implementation details: indexing the fee to inflation, using early receipts to invest or seed programs, options to phase in a lower initial fee and increase over time, and whether to pursue a charter amendment to avoid the 50% May threshold. Several councilors said they preferred honest messaging to voters and to frame the measure as sustaining public safety and other core city services rather than presenting it as funding for police only.
The council instructed staff to gather specific next steps and cost estimates, including polling quotes, estimated costs for a public education/mail campaign, legal options for a fee versus levy or charter amendment, and the practical mechanics of including commercial meters or ESUs (equivalent service units). No motion or final decision was made; councilors agreed to return to the matter once staff provided the requested data.
