The Philomath City Council voted 4-2 Monday night to approve the first reading of an ordinance establishing a police services fee following an extended debate over whether the funding should be restricted specifically to police compensation.
Councilors Diane Crocker, Spencer Irwin, Brent Kaseman and Rich Saalsaa voted in favor of Ordinance 895. Councilor Jessica Andrade and Mayor Christopher McMorran voted against it. Councilor Teresa Nielson was absent. Because the vote was not unanimous, the ordinance returns for a second reading on July 27.
McMorran said the city attorney recommended structuring the ordinance so the fee’s framework would be written into the Philomath Municipal Code while the dollar amount and collection details could be adjusted through a council resolution as needed, without requiring a change to the code itself. The fee would apply as a surcharge on utility bills for every developed property in city limits and would be reviewed annually once set.
The city initially proposed a $14 monthly city services fee, citing a structural gap between revenues and expenses driven by property tax limitations under state law, inflation and a need to improve the city’s competitiveness in public safety compensation. In June, the Budget Review Committee approved a package of budget cuts that allowed the fee to drop to a proposed amount of $5 per month with the full amount directed toward police operations. On June 23, the council folded the proposed $5 fee into its $34.7 million budget for fiscal year 2026-27 on a 6-1 vote ahead of enacting the ordinance itself.
Ordinance 895 sets the collection structure only with the rate set separately by resolution. An emergency clause attached to the ordinance allows it to take effect immediately upon passage.
Councilors discussed the issue for close to 50 minutes, much of it revolving around Crocker’s concern that the ordinance’s language was too broad and should specify that the fee’s proceeds be earmarked for police salaries. As written, the funds would go toward general police operations in the already-approved 2026-27 budget.
“There is some concern in the community about that part — they would like it to go to the compensation,” Crocker said.
Assistant City Manager Chelsea Starner said the issue had already been addressed at the Budget Review Committee level.
“It’s not just for salaries, it’s for compensation, our insurance benefits going up, certifications that are costing us more,” she said. With the city currently negotiating a police union contract, she added, “We’re negotiating in good faith based off of what we all talked about in executive session. … We need this so that we can fulfill what you’ve asked us to fulfill.”
During the public comments portion of the meeting, a Philomath resident spoke in favor of putting the issue on the ballot in the form of a bond levy.
“I’m here because I feel like the mechanism that you’re using to raise funds is a poor option,” Andy Bumstead, a 15-year Philomath resident who owns a small construction business in town, said. “I feel like calling it a fee is not being genuine — it’s a tax. It should be on a levy and it should be given to the voters.”
Several councilors agreed a levy would have been preferable, but tight timing ruled out placing one on the November ballot this cycle, City Manager Chris Workman told councilors in June.
“I’ve said from the very beginning I would rather this be a levy or something like that,” McMorran said. “I just really have some personal philosophical things about the use of utility bills for things beyond utilities.”
Saalsaa called the fee “kind of a stopgap measure” made necessary by timing, adding, “A levy would be preferable. … This is now to get us from point A to point B.”
Workman defended the fee structure and pointed to the city’s funding history.
“I’m very proud of the fact that the city hasn’t had to impose a levy on its residents in a very long time,” he said.
According to Benton County election records, the last time Philomath passed a bond levy occurred in November 1998 — that being for $80,000 to improve city parks.
Workman added that the city has also avoided construction bonds, relying instead on savings, grants and fees.
“I think the city has a long track record of being fiscally responsible,” he said.
McMorran cautioned against assuming the fee is short-lived, noting the city is also counting on urban renewal funds to cover other budget cuts.
“We shouldn’t talk about this as inherently being a stopgap because we don’t know what that tax base would look like,” he said.
Workman said that if the ordinance is approved on the second vote, it won’t be effective until 30 days later, which would be the end of August. Under that timeline, it wouldn’t get billed until September and utility customers would not see it on their bills until October.
