Yamhill town hall hears concerns over $5 monthly police service fee; council to decide April 14

The City of Yamhill held a virtual town hall on March 24, 2021, to discuss a proposal to add a $5-per-month police service fee to utility bills, a measure city staff said is intended to help close persistent gaps in the police department budget. Chief Greg Raven led the presentation and answered questions from residents and council members; the City Council is scheduled to consider the proposal at its April 14 meeting.

The fee would be added to monthly utility statements and, according to information Raven gave at the town hall, would generate roughly $225,260 a year. Some callers who made their own calculations cited much lower estimates; one participant said $30,720 per year. Raven said the fee would be placed in a line item in the city budget and spent on equipment, training, vehicle maintenance, grant writing and staffing needs, and that individual expenditures would be itemized.

Supporters in the meeting stressed the difficulty of recruiting and retaining officers on current pay and said the fee would help avoid contracting with the county sheriff, which officials warned could reduce local patrol presence and increase costs. "They could leave the city today and go to another police department and make probably more than 50% more than what they make now," Raven said, explaining why the department was seeking additional revenue. Officer Chris Livingston, who serves as a school resource officer, said of the local officers: "It's pretty shocking how little our officers get paid" and described volunteering unpaid patrol hours.

Residents pressed for specifics on how the money would be used and how the fee would be collected. One caller asked what would happen if a household did not pay; Raven said he did not know of an enforcement action tied specifically to the fee. Another participant, Patty Perrin, read language from the draft ordinance noting an automatic annual increase tied to the CPI-U West region and asked whether that meant automatic increases without local oversight. Walt Gall, identified in the meeting as a city staff member, said the CPI-U has averaged about 2% over the last decade and that the ordinance also allows the City Council to defer all or part of any annual CPI adjustment by resolution.

Several residents, including seniors, said even a small monthly fee could strain fixed incomes, and speakers urged broader community outreach before a council vote. Carol, who said she has lived in Yamhill 33 years, said: "For the people that are retired on fixed income, every $5 matters." Donna Dempsey volunteered to help explore options such as a local fund or fundraising to assist residents who could not afford the fee.

Speakers discussed alternatives to the proposed fee. Raven said a ballot measure or bond had been discussed in prior years but that timing and competing ballot measures had led staff and council to propose a service fee instead. Raven also said the city continues to pursue grants, including the federal COPS program, but that grant competition and recent reductions have limited grant revenue. Raven described a scenario in which contracting with the county sheriff's office would raise local costs and alter staffing and pay because contracted deputies would be paid at the sheriff's pay scales.

The draft ordinance includes a provision tying annual adjustments to the CPI-U West region index, and meeting participants asked for clearer limits and processes around increases. Raven said any change to fee levels would be made by the City Council and that he would not unilaterally raise the amount.

City staff and the chief said they would post an anonymous survey on the city website and on the Yamhill Town Community Facebook page and make paper copies available at city hall. No final decision was made at the town hall; the City Council is expected to vote at its April 14 meeting. Residents were urged to attend or submit written comments in advance of that meeting.

The town hall included about two dozen participants who posed questions; the discussion covered projected revenues, budget shortfalls, staff vacancies, training and equipment needs, the draft ordinance's CPI clause, possible impacts on seniors and low-income residents, collection and enforcement questions, and alternatives including bonds or contracting with the county sheriff.