La Grande staff proposes $10-per-month public safety fee to shore up police and fire funding

La Grande ———City Manager John proposed a $10-per-month public safety service fee at a July work session as a way to preserve police and fire services and give staff breathing room while longer-term fiscal efforts continue. "How do we sustain the city services our community expects while protecting the city's long term financial health?" he asked the council as he introduced the proposal.

The fee, which staff would bill through utility accounts, is modeled on the city's existing street-user fee mechanism. Heather, a finance staffer, told the council the city currently bills about 4,500 utility accounts and that an $8-per-month street-user fee produced roughly $441,399 this fiscal year. She said a $10 public safety fee billed to the same accounts would generate about $560,000 before allowances; after allowance for bad debt staff estimated roughly $540,000 as a realistic figure.

Why it matters: Staff framed the fee as a partial fix for a structural revenue shortfall and as a way to restore services cut in the recent budget. Parks and Recreation staff warned of the risk of deferring maintenance, citing a $100,000 cut for the pool HVAC and saying, "If that's down, the pool closes, and we're out hundreds of thousands of dollars because we're ignoring it right now." City Manager John said the fee would not fully solve the structural deficit but would "bring back" many items removed last year and provide organization-wide relief.

Earmarking and accountability: Council members asked whether revenues would be ring-fenced. Heather and John said the fee would be tracked separately, reported annually and tied to police and fire expenditures; staff noted they would perform a yearly cost analysis showing revenue and associated public-safety expenditures.

Equity and technical challenges: Several council members pressed staff on how multiunit dwellings and apartment complexes would be treated, noting that many complexes share a single meter and could currently be charged only once per meter. John said staff are working with legal counsel and a consultant to develop tiered or adjusted application language and to identify multiunit users, but acknowledged the technical and metering limits: officials warned that counting dwelling units can be more complex than it appears and that some buildings would require backend adjustments rather than new meters.

Political context and timing: Councilors raised concerns that enacting the fee before voters see a proposed gas-tax measure could reduce public appetite for the ballot question. John and others said both options could be presented to the public; staff emphasized education and planned public outreach (budget roundtables and a Community Service Readiness Index dashboard) so voters understand trade-offs. Stacy, a city staffer, told the council she will place related resolutions on the Aug. 5 agenda and that the ordinance path requires a two-reading/90-day process, so implementation would come months later if approved.

Stakeholder statements: The meeting included written statements read into the record: Councilor Wheeler's written comments in support of the fee, and a letter from Merle Lacy, La Grande's fire chief, urging the council to act to preserve response capabilities. An on-site chief also voiced support, calling the proposal "palatable" and "doable," and recommending the fee be sustained rather than treated as short term only.

Next steps: This was a work session, not a council vote. Staff said they will draft ordinance language with legal counsel, continue consultant analysis to refine revenues and multiunit treatment, present resolutions and draft ordinance material at the Aug. 5 meeting, and pursue public education before any council action. If the council directs staff to proceed, the fee would go to the council for hearings and ordinance readings before possible implementation in the next budget cycle.

Context note: The presentation drew on League of Oregon Cities (LOC) data comparing service-fee practices across Oregon and cited potential one-time and recurring savings (insurance adjustments, surplus of city-owned properties) that staff say could further improve the city's fiscal position if pursued alongside the fee.