Talent council weighs fee increase, school-year SRO and other options to cover budget shortfall

Talent's City Council held a study session June 17 to consider how to fund the school resource officer (SRO) amid an ongoing general fund shortfall and to preview a proposed increase to the city's public safety surcharge.

City staff presented three options: keep the SRO as a year‑round, budgeted position; hire an officer who works only during the school year (saving about $50,000); or eliminate the position entirely (roughly $100,000 in savings to the city, but forfeiting the district's contribution and summer coverage). Staff said the full cost of a year‑round SRO is a little over $150,000 and that Phoenix Town Schools has revised its offer to contribute $51,300 after earlier figures of about $40,000.

Alex, the city staff presenter, told the council that retaining a year‑round SRO and balancing the general fund would require identifying about $300,000 in new revenue and that the total change needed in the adopted budget context could be as much as $450,000 depending on other staffing decisions. "Staff would recommend that we discuss raising $300,000 in revenue from public safety search charge in order to fund that," Alex said. He described a mix of approaches — a roughly $4–$5 monthly increase to the residential public safety surcharge and a move to a trip‑based model for nonresidential payers — that could generate the revenue in phases.

Council members pressed staff for transparency on how much of a fee increase would go to the SRO. In response Alex said the portion of the proposed increase tied specifically to the SRO in the draft scenario equates to about $1.84 per month per residential account (stated in the transcript as "it's a $184 is the difference"). Staff emphasized that the $300,000 figure is not solely the SRO cost but part of a broader effort to close the general fund gap.

Superintendent Brent Barry of Phoenix Town Schools said the district values the SRO program for building relationships and providing on‑demand safety, and that the district had worked to align its contribution with the city. "We have really worked hard to establish a strong SRO program with the city of Talent and it's been 7 years in the making," Barry said, stressing that the district's revised offer and the school staff's memo were intended to ensure both entities were "on the same page." Board member Baramman also joined the discussion on behalf of the district.

Councilors voiced concern about affordability and the regressive nature of user fees. Several members said they favored option two — keeping an SRO during the school year only — while urging staff to pursue grants (staff noted a potential COPS grant) and to expand public engagement before a final decision. Staff proposed outreach via utility bill messaging, social media, targeted commercial mailings, a public open house on July 22 to receive testimony, and a council deliberation and potential adoption on Aug. 5.

Council members asked staff to provide clearer breakdowns in the upcoming fee discussion (including how much each dollar of the surcharge generates and whether other funds, such as the street fund, could be adjusted temporarily). One councilor asked staff to assess longer‑term options such as predictable annual fee adjustments or a levy rather than ad hoc increases, citing concerns about regressivity.

No formal vote was taken during the study session. The council closed the meeting after thanking district representatives and staff; officials said they would return with refined figures and a public engagement plan prior to any adoption vote.

The council's next steps include staff outreach to the public as outlined and return to the council on Aug. 5 for deliberation; staff also said they will continue to explore grant opportunities and provide the requested fee analyses.