Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Philomath council advances ordinance to create police services fee structure; debate centers on levy, scope and timing
Summary
After a public comment urging a levy, the Philomath City Council approved a first reading of Ordinance 8‑95 to establish the structure for a police services fee (the amount will be set by later resolution). Council voted 4–2 on the first reading; supporters called the fee a short‑term stopgap to avoid a roughly $200,000 budget gap, while opponents urged bringing the issue to voters and narrowing permitted uses.
The Philomath City Council held a lengthy public discussion and then advanced a first reading of Ordinance 8‑95, which establishes a municipal code chapter to allow a police services fee. The ordinance sets the structure for collecting a fee but does not set the dollar amount; the council will set the amount later by resolution. On the first reading the council voted 4–2 to advance the ordinance to a second reading.
Public comment opened with Andrew (Andy) Bumstead, who identified himself as a Willamette resident and small‑business owner. He told the council he opposed the mechanism under consideration and urged a public vote: “It’s a tax. And, it should be on a levy, and it should be given to the voters,” Bumstead said.
Council deliberations focused on two central concerns: whether the ordinance is too broad about permissible uses of revenues and whether the fee is being used as a stopgap in place of a levy. Several councilors said they prefer a levy but cited timing constraints. Councilor Graham Crocker said the ordinance’s language was too general and asked whether the fee could be limited to compensation; other councilors and staff noted the budget the council already approved shows personnel and materials allocations for the police department and that the fee would flow to the department’s general fund.
City staff described an emergency clause included with the ordinance to accelerate revenue collection and explained the likely billing timeline: with the emergency clause enacted and a second reading at the next meeting, staff said billing could begin in August and payments would be due when the August utility bill is issued in September. Staff noted the fee is intended to cover a shortfall the approved budget would otherwise face and estimated the $5‑per‑month option would produce just over $200,000 in annual revenue.
Legal and budgetary context was repeatedly raised. Staff and the attorney said the city has budgeted a compensation amount and is negotiating a new multi‑year contract with police; any contract returns to the council for ratification. Supporters of the fee framed it as necessary to keep the police budget solvent and to preserve competitiveness for recruiting and retaining officers. Opponents warned that broad language could allow future councils to move funds away from compensation and urged clearer limits or taking the matter to voters.
The ordinance was read for the first time and then put to a roll call vote. The roll call recorded votes as follows: Jessica Andrade — no; Graham Crocker — yes; Spencer Erwin — yes; Brent Caseman — yes; Christopher Horn — no; Rich Salsa — yes. The first reading passed 4–2. Staff said the ordinance will return for a second reading (tentatively the 27th of this month) so the council can consider the emergency clause and finalize an effective date.
No final contract or compensation decisions were made in open session; the council then moved into an executive session to consult with counsel about litigation matters.
