Curry County commissioners signal support to place five-year law enforcement levy on ballot amid staffing concerns

Curry County commissioners on Dec. 4 signaled they would allow a citizen-driven five-year law enforcement levy to go before voters, following a presentation that proposed using levy revenues to fund five patrol deputies, two dispatchers and one sergeant and a public comment period that included union backing and resident concern.

The levy plan presented to the board would replace certain general-fund support for the sheriff’s office and carry a five-year sunset. An organizer told commissioners the ballot measure was designed to ask for a lower rate than a previous proposal and that supporters would lead outreach to educate voters. The board did not take a formal vote to place the measure on the ballot during the meeting; several commissioners said they supported moving the question forward and described a consensus in favor but noted the formal vote was not on the published agenda.

Why it matters: Commissioners and community members framed the levy as a way to shore up public safety and relieve strain on dispatch and patrol staffing in a county that has seen recent layoffs and recruitment challenges. Opponents warned that a property tax levy would raise costs for residents and urged consideration of alternatives such as lodging or gas-related taxes.

Organizers and union officials asked the board to avoid the signature-gathering process and instead approve placement on an off-year ballot, arguing a five-year sunset would make it more palatable to voters. A citizen presenter and advisory materials distributed at the meeting described a hiring schedule spread over three years rather than front-loading all hires in year one, and said the levy would make the sheriff’s office more financially independent from the general fund.

Union leaders from Teamsters Local 223 spoke at the meeting in support of the levy. "The sheriff's office is severely understaffed and needs your help now," Rod Palmquist, business agent for Teamsters Local 223, told the board. Austin DePaolo, the union’s secretary-treasurer, said members are "very pissed about the recent layoffs" and described the levy’s sunset clause as an improvement from a prior failed measure.

Not all public commenters supported a levy. Resident Vicky Shaw told commissioners, "Am I pro levying? No," and urged exploration of alternatives that might distribute costs across visitors rather than property owners.

Public safety update: Lt. Jeremy Krone, jail commander, told the board the jail currently has three open positions (projected to be four by Jan. 31 without hires), eight deputies on staff working 12-hour shifts and an inmate population of 14. He described repeated incidents related to severe mental-illness cases and told the board the county had been awarded a grant for the jail: "We were awarded a grant. $334,000 specifically to the jail," he said, noting final agreements were pending.

Other meeting actions and vote tally: The board approved the consent agenda (which included the added hire for the sheriff’s administrative assistant) by voice vote, recorded as 3-0 in favor. Commissioners appointed Commissioner Trost as the district delegate to the Association of Counties; that motion also passed 3-0. After returning from an executive session about likely litigation, the board approved an order requiring coordination and cooperation between the Board of Commissioners and the Curry County Sheriff; that motion passed 3-0.

Votes at a glance: - Approve amended agenda (added hire for sheriff’s executive assistant Karen Lynn): motion moved by Speaker 4, second by Speaker 1; outcome: approved 3-0. - Approve consent agenda (includes administrative assistant hire): outcome: approved 3-0. - Appoint Commissioner Trost as AOCC delegate: outcome: approved 3-0. - Approve order requiring coordination/cooperation with the sheriff (post-executive session): outcome: approved 3-0.

What’s next: Organizers asked the board to put the levy question on an off-year ballot and said they would provide outreach and materials. Commissioners asked that all presentation materials be posted publicly and emphasized careful messaging and timing to maximize the measure’s chance of passage. The board entered executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(h) earlier in the meeting to consult with counsel on likely litigation and returned to approve the coordination order before adjourning.

Meeting context and reporting notes: The board repeatedly emphasized that the sheriff (identified in the discussion as Sheriff Ward) will control hiring and operations if the levy is approved; presenters and board members described the levy’s schematic as an illustration of budget impact, not a staffing mandate. Several commissioners urged caution about ballot language, outreach timing and learning lessons from the prior failed measure.