Willows council directs staff to pursue Mello‑Roos district, with COP as plan B, to fund reestablished police department

The Willows City Council on April 28 voted to direct staff to pursue a Mello‑Roos community facilities district to pay for start‑up capital and, if needed, ongoing operations for a reestablished Willows Police Department, and approved keeping a certificate of participation (COP) plan as a backup if a two‑thirds ballot threshold proved unattainable.

The motion, which was amended on the floor to include a COP as a plan B, passed by roll call with all members voting aye. Council members recorded on the roll call included Council Member Pride (aye), Council Member Hanson (aye), Council Member Busby (aye) and Vice Mayor Rick Thomas (aye). The council directed staff to return with more detailed scenarios at the May 12 meeting so the body can decide whether to proceed toward a November ballot deadline.

Marty Brown, the staff lead on the project, introduced Wolf Hansen & Company to present options. Rob Pankratz, a vice president with Wolf Hansen, told the council that the city’s existing contract payments to the county could be redirected to fund a local department but that the primary questions were the up‑front start‑up costs and how to close any gap between those funds and the ongoing cost to run a department. “Presumably, you are going to redirect the dollars that you are currently paying to the county sheriff,” Pankratz said, and then determine the “delta” between those funds and the true cost of a municipal department.

Pankratz outlined financing tools including Mello‑Roos (community facilities district) bonds, general obligation bonds and certificates of participation. He said a CFD can include both a facilities component and a services component and be indexed to inflation so that revenues escalate with costs, while GO bonds are constrained to capital spending by legal limits. He offered a rough example: if the city needed $500,000 per year in supplemental operations funding, that could translate to about $225 per household annually if spread across roughly 2,200 homes.

Several council members said they favored a CFD for its flexibility but raised equity and public‑acceptance concerns about placing most of the burden on property owners. One council member said, “The only problem with the CFD approach is we’re putting a good portion of the expense … on the backs of the property owners,” and emphasized the need for a public education campaign if the council pursues a ballot measure.

Council discussion also covered a phased approach: use debt (such as a COP) to cover immediate start‑up costs without a ballot and then pursue a CFD for long‑term operational funding, if needed. Pankratz said a COP could be arranged without going to voters but may carry higher debt service costs, whereas a tax measure provides a dedicated revenue stream that can be bonded against.

The council’s direction requires staff to assemble a consultant team, finalize cost estimates and, if the council chooses a ballot measure, meet election filing deadlines. Pankratz said work could be completed in time for a November ballot if the council decides quickly; formation and collection of first tax revenues, if approved in November, would likely occur in 2028 due to formation and collection schedules.

Next steps: staff will return with more detailed analyses and proposed ballot language options at the May 12 meeting, and the council’s formal motion record directs staff to pursue both CFD modeling for startup and operational costs and to maintain a COP plan as a contingency.