West Linn council ranks operations center, staff stabilization top of budget priorities

West Linn's City Council spent its Nov. 17 work session laying out financial priorities and funding tools, landing on replacement of the operations center and stabilization of existing staffing as the items that should rise to the top of the city's work plan. Staff and councilors agreed the two items are closely connected: how the operations center is financed affects utility and general fund capacity and therefore the city's ability to maintain current service levels.

Sarah Wilson, the meeting facilitator, opened the session by asking the council to "continue our conversation about establishing shared financial priorities and then exploring and evaluating revenue options," and staff walked the council through an eight'item placemat that asked members to score each candidate on impact, urgency and readiness. The placemat and packet included cost estimates and a revenue-options comparison prepared by Finance staff.

Staff told the council the operations center had been budgeted at $35 million but current construction estimates put the project closer to $45 million; that gap is the focus of the near-term funding discussion. Finance staff noted that, under earlier assumptions, about $540,000 a year in debt service was built into fund forecasts for a $35 million scenario and that the larger cost could raise that annual debt service to about $700,000. Councilors and staff discussed several options to manage that increase: a voter-approved general obligation bond, a full-faith-and-credit obligation (FFCO), or utility and other fees to capture the general fund component of the project.

Councilor Kevin Bonington argued for a bond option to pay for the facility: "I think we should consider, completely funding the operation center through a bond," he said, adding that a voter-approved bond could match long-lived capital to long-term repayment. Other councilors cautioned that a bond campaign would require substantial public engagement and that the city might need a fee-based plan in place to support debt marketing or to stabilize utility and general fund balances while a bond campaign proceeds.

On staffing and stabilization, staff presented a five'year forecast showing a roughly $9 million general fund deficit that could produce a negative fund balance by fiscal year 2029 unless revenue or reductions are implemented. Staff outlined a package of candidate positions across parks, police and planning (including community service officers, additional patrol, parks program positions and planning/code enforcement staff) and estimated the annual cost to fund the staffing package plus a $2 million stabilization target at roughly $4.6 million a year. Finance staff said that would equate to roughly $42'$43 a month per utility customer if entirely shifted to a utility'based fee, or lower per'customer amounts if the ask were split among fees, renewals/levies and other measures.

Councilors told staff to prepare a work plan that sequences choices, refines costs and identifies engagement and polling needs. Council asked staff to come back with calendar options and more detailed scenarios that could be discussed and potentially moved forward in the next budget cycle; staff said they will also gather input from the absent council member and prepare suggested outreach materials.

The meeting closed with staff directed to aggregate the prioritization results, draft a timeline for the operations center decision and for any fee or ballot measures, and return with detailed cost and outreach plans so the council can make a final call on tools and timing.