Philomath committee weighs $14 monthly city services fee to shore up reserves, police pay

Philomath staff presented a proposed $14-per-month city services fee as a possible way to steady a shrinking general fund and to protect planned investments in public safety.

Chris Workman, who introduced the fee in the committee packet, said the city’s primary revenue — property tax — is capped at about 3% growth annually and other sources such as franchise fees and state shared revenues have declined. "If we did nothing," Workman said, "we would have dropped well below $500,000… probably $400,000" in the unappropriated ending fund balance, creating risks for payroll and operations between July and November. He said the council directed staff to include a fee option in the proposed budget and to bring it to the budget review process and the public for feedback, but that neither the council nor staff has approved the fee.

The packet shows two similar staff estimates of revenue from a $14 monthly fee — staff updated the figure during the meeting, citing both about $43,200 and a $42,300 estimate — and said the fee would primarily affect the city’s ending fund balance rather than being the only source of police pay increases. Workman and other staff told the committee the police budget in the proposed spending plan already includes roughly $200,000 to improve competitiveness; bargaining with the police union is underway and the contract expires June 30.

Members of the committee and public asked for alternatives. Nancy Weise, who identified herself as a Philomath resident and said she serves as a Benton County commissioner but was speaking in a personal capacity, said, "I think the $14 fee is too much; I would humbly ask this committee to request additional options, perhaps cuts along with a smaller fee and a longer‑term plan." Susan Holidayiday (who said she works for the Full School District) asked that written public comments be posted so attendees can review them; staff confirmed written comments will appear in the next packet and be posted online.

Committee members pressed staff for additional detail about how fee revenue would be used, how the fee interacts with already budgeted police funds and collective bargaining results, and for a version of the budget that excludes the $14 fee. Staff agreed to return at the next meeting (May 27) with follow‑up material, including a budget alternative that reduces general fund spending by $100,000–$150,000 for committee consideration.

The committee took no final action on the fee at the meeting; staff emphasized this was an information and feedback session and that the committee will review public input and revised numbers at the May 27 meeting.