Curry County commissioners debate levy language and sheriff cooperation; decision deferred pending clarification

At the Jan. 9 meeting, Curry County commissioners discussed objections raised about the draft ballot language for a proposed May 2025 levy intended to fund law enforcement personnel.

The clerk's office and staff told the board that a citizen (identified in email as Miss Cochran / George Cochran in materials) objected to language that would restrict unused annual levy funds to levy purposes and continue to carry forward those funds for law‑enforcement staffing after a levy expires. "The statement is we cannot move forward with the levy based on the unacceptable language Ted added to the SAL 8 0 5 submitted to you by the lehi committee," the clerk summarized from the email chain.

Why it matters: The disputed wording would tell voters that unused funds attributable to the levy would remain restricted and used for the levy purpose even after the levy period expired — for example, because of tax collections arriving in later years — rather than reverting fully to the general fund.

What staff reported: Finance and county counsel said the Oregon Department of Revenue's tax division had told staff that the language made sense for preserving funds for levy purposes and that unused collections after a levy expires can, under certain circumstances, be used for the levy's intended purpose as carryover. The department cautioned about proposing a levy that collects but does not use funds for the levy purpose.

Commissioners' concerns: Commissioner Patrick Hollinger said he lacks confidence in the sheriff's leadership and the data the sheriff's office provided, and he said he would not support asking the public for new tax dollars without performance audits and clearer staffing statistics. "I can't sit here in good faith to everybody and say that this is a good idea," Hollinger said, citing missing statistics and the sheriff's office's limited cooperation with ORS and county requests for records.

Next steps: The clerk noted a citizen objector may file a court challenge by a near deadline; the commissioners agreed not to make a sudden decision. The board asked staff to reach out to former commissioner Chris Pash (who had sent an email) and to the sheriff for clarification; they agreed to revisit the levy in a future public meeting after those conversations. The item was not withdrawn on Jan. 9 and remains on the schedule pending follow‑up.

Ending: Commissioners left the levy discussion open for further information and declined to remove the question immediately; they will reconvene the matter after speaking with the committee co‑presenter and the sheriff and before the March filing deadline if changes are needed for the ballot.