Willows City committee reviews first Measure I receipts, projects modest deficit and staffing requests

Willows City Finance and Measure I Committee members heard a staff presentation on the city’s current finances and early receipts from Measure I — the 1.5% local sales tax voters approved — and took public comment on how to prioritize spending.

Martie Brown, a city finance staff member, told the committee the city projects a starting general fund reserve on July 1, 2025, of just over $1 million, which includes the first quarter of Measure I receipts (April–June) estimated at about $475,000. Brown said total projected general fund revenue for fiscal year 2025–26 is $7.3 million, including an estimated $1.9 million in Measure I receipts for the full year, while expenditures are projected at about $7.4 million, producing a year‑end deficit of roughly $65,000 and an ending fund balance “just under a million dollars.”

The presentation listed items excluded from the forecast: proceeds from three recently approved city property sales; unresolved transit‑occupancy‑tax (TOT) audit recoveries from motels and hotels; the city’s pending cannabis license approvals and their associated tax revenue; and unspecified future private development.

Brown outlined cost increases baked into the projection, including a sheriff’s contract increase of $335,000 (from about $2.0 million to $2.335 million), an $80,000 increase in unfunded pension liability, an estimated $20,000 rise in property and liability insurance, higher health‑care costs, and about $75,000 of departmental operating cost increases, totaling roughly $633,000 in additional pressures for the coming year. She also presented a list of staff‑recommended spending to address deferred needs that would add about $516,000 if approved, including a replacement Ford F‑150 for public works, funds toward a second fire engine, technology upgrades, continued TOT auditing, and reclassification of library staff to create an assistant library director position in place of a library technician.

Brown emphasized the presentation was high level and intended to gather community input for the full council’s budget deliberations, saying, “We have no authority over the budget at this point in time. That's for the entire council. So once we gather the information that you folks share with us tonight, we'll take that back and present it to the full council for consideration as we go through our budget.”

Public commenters urged different priorities. Dan Gupton, a lifelong resident, asked the council to fund a full‑time children’s librarian position that had been approved previously in last year’s budget process and characterized a $36,000 full‑time position as a modest request. David Vodden, a retired resident, urged leaders to use Measure I revenue for “investing in the future” and revenue‑generating amenities such as reopening the city pool and improving attractions that draw travelers off Interstate 5. Several speakers, including Doug Ross of the Sacramento Valley Mirror and other residents, urged shopping locally, improving wayfinding and street signs, and preparing to capture economic opportunity from large regional projects such as Sites Reservoir construction.

County Supervisor Jimmy Otter (District 4) urged residents to submit comments by email if they did not want to speak at the meeting and said the county and city should study how to capture services and lodging demand from long‑term construction projects. He noted a preliminary estimate to establish a police function in‑house — by modifying an existing building rather than building a new station — could be on the order of several hundred thousand dollars to multiple millions, depending on scope, and highlighted regional competition for law‑enforcement staffing, including high signing bonuses offered by other agencies.

Committee members and staff discussed deferred maintenance such as a failed public‑works vehicle, an inoperable stump grinder and leaf pickup equipment, aging street sweepers and street signage that needs replacement. Brown recommended continuing TOT auditing and monitoring, noting a past audit uncovered shortfalls.

Votes at a glance: the committee approved meeting minutes by voice vote (recorded as two “Aye” responses); no mover or second was recorded in the audio, and no other formal votes on budget items or spending were taken at the meeting.

The committee closed by inviting additional community feedback and possible next steps, including a community survey or facilitated workshop to gather broader input before the full council’s budget decisions.