Megan Stewart
The Sweet Home Budget Committee last week continued its discussion of allocating marijuana tax funds to the General Fund for future needs and $230,000 originally proposed for property tax reductions to fund up to two police officer positions.
The meeting also included discussion of various components of the city’s 2020-21 spending plan, including summaries of the proposed line-item budgets for the public works budget, finance and courts, and the executive and legislative departments.
Present for the May 14 meeting were City Councilors James Goble, Cortney Nash, Greg Mahler, Diane Gerson, and Dave Trask gathered at City Hall, and committee members Ken Hamlin, the chair, Robert Briana, Derek Dix, Dave Jurney and David Lowman.
Regarding property taxes, the committee decided to maintain the current police department tax rate, including 30 cents per $1,000 assessed value originally proposed for reduction, after extensive discussion.
Committee members agreed to postpone voting on anything until the next meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, May 19, to give the public a chance to voice their opinions.
In their previous budget meeting on May 5, the committee considered distributing the marijuana tax funds to the Library or the Police Department. On Thursday, committee members voiced strong support for allocating marijuana tax money to the Police Department as they had in the 2019-20 fiscal year. The revenue, totaling around $180,000, could fund two police officer positions.
However, Finance Director Brandon Neish and City Manager Raymond Towry cautioned against “using these funds too quickly.”
Though Neish acknowledged the marijuana tax revenue was much higher than initially anticipated, and the council members had the power under the 2018 Oregon Revised Statute to spend the money however they saw fit, he recommended allotting it to the general fund. Putting the money into the general fund would provide the council with more flexibility on how to spend the revenue, as opposed to prematurely allocating it to one specific department.
After all, Neish said, next year’s marijuana tax revenue “could go either way,” meaning the amount of money received may not be stable.
Neish suggested another option for funding the police department to the desired extent: maintaining the current property tax rate, instead of reducing it as city staff had proposed May 5.
“At the last meeting, we had a big conversation surrounding, if you all remember, the proposal that we put forth, which was to take 30 cents less on the public safety levy for the coming fiscal year,” said Neish. “The result of that was about $230,000 that the Police Department wouldn’t see next year.”
He said if the 30-cent cut were implemented, the result would be less compression, lowering the average compression amount in Sweet Home from from $461.71 to $421.75. It also releases 96 more houses from compression.
Neish also said that if the levy were reduced, the library and the county would receive bigger shares of the property tax revenue Sweet Home residents pay. He said the excess revenue would be split about “fifty-fifty” between those two entities.
He said that if the police levy were maintained at its current rate, one police position could be filled and the other could be left in a “contingency” position, which could be filled later with the council’s “blessing.”
“We have spent the last few years kind of making up for lost time, so to speak,” said Neish. “We’ve replaced a bunch of vehicles in the police department, replaced needed equipment, so on and so forth. This was kind of our way of giving back to the residents and saying we don’t need the whole tax rate.”
Council members, however, worried that Sweet Home citizens would disapprove of cutting funds from the police department, even if it meant their property tax rate decreased 30 cents per $1,000 assessed value.
“Like I mentioned in the last meeting,” said Mahler, “it’s a double-edged sword. If you take it away, you may never see it back. And, second of all, I think during these times it’s imperative that we maintain our law enforcement at the level it’s at. I don’t think we need a reduction. I don’t know if anyone’s been watching the news, there was discussion, the Oregon State troopers are going to be cut back and who else knows what’s going to be cut back, and I think at this present time, we [need to] keep our community safe.”
Committee member David Lowman agreed with Mahler, citing reports of people breaking into stores closed for the COVID-19 outbreak.
“I really believe … the police department could use that money if they’re going to get that marijuana money taken away from them,” said Lowman.
“I firmly believe that it’s important to maintain our level, and I think our local law enforcement is doing an excellent job, and I stand behind them,” said Mahler. “I think that we should keep it at the level we’re at.”
Committee member Dave Jurney reminded the committee that as long as they kept the police department funded, it didn’t matter how they did it.
“One doesn’t have anything to do with the other in my mind,” said Jurney. “You just keep the police department up and then talk about the marijuana revenue.”
Mahler was quick to reiterate Neish’s earlier recommendation.
“I think the marijuana money – we shouldn’t be too hasty to spend it, or say we’re going to put it one place or another,” Mahler said. “I think we said to put it in the general fund, it sits there, and then the council can decide [what to use it for].
“Something may come up, we may say, ‘Oh, you know this is a huge priority for our community, we’re going to put a little bit here, a little bit there. I mean, it’s up to the council. I don’t think we need to have a decision tonight where the marijuana money goes.”
Trask agreed with Mahler, saying that the committee can just deal with potential police department funding shortages if it ever happens.
“But, ultimately what I’m hearing from the committee is ‘leave the marijuana money in the general fund and we’ll kind of cross the bridge as we go through these next five years,” said Neish, “and kind of hope this picture is a better one down the road.”
In addition to marijuana and property taxes, the council relayed updates for next year about the water, wastewater, streets, parks, finance, and executive and legislative departments.
Public Works
Public Works Director Greg Springman reviewed how the department’s water budget was spent last year, in which his crew members fixed 120 water leaks and 544 potholes, swept 4,100 miles and made 397 leaf pickups, an increase of almost 80 from last year.
The water budget will increase from $4,074,341.86 to $4,535,914.
The city will transfer out $91,407 from the General Fund to continue repaying the loan from the Water Depreciation Fund that was used to renovate Sweet Home’s new City Hall. The city borrowed $800,000 for the project and will pay 2.5 percent interest each year for ten years.
The wastewater budget will increase from $6,309,018 to $14,375,355, due to the future construction project to rehabilitate the Wastewater Treatment plant.
The streets budget will increase from $2,352,043 to $2,663,787. However, upon the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) recommendation, the city has reduced the initial revenue proposal for the Gas Tax Fund.
Sweet Home anticipates losing $45,000 in gas tax revenues during the 2021 fiscal year.
The parls budget will decrease from $212,440 to $181,069.
Finance and Municipal Court
The budget will hardly increase from $189,462 to 198,000.
Executive and Legislative
Departments
The budget will slightly decrease from $324,827 to $324,712.