by Christy Solo – Editor
The bulk of the June 11 Shady Cove City Council Special Meeting and Budget Hearing was taken up by public comment and replies from council.
Both Shari Tarvin and Natalie Swendener read comments written and submitted by Swendener.
You can hear the full comments and council’s replies on the recording of the June 11 meeting.
You can also see and hear the comments and council’s replies on the Zoom recording of the May 26, 2026 Budget Meeting, because – as Swendener stated in her June 11 comments (both those read by her and Tarvin) she had already asked these questions in May.
Near the end of the May 26 budget meeting (after Swendener’s initial questions and the committee’s answers), the budget committee asked Swendener, “do you feel your questions were answered?” Swendener replied “No” and the committee listened to and answered her subsequent questions regarding the reorganization of staffing.
Briefly, for those who did not attend or listen to or watch the recordings of either referenced meeting: Part of the 26/27 budget is the “reorganization” of city staff. This will be done to free up approximately $118K in the General Fund which will be used to (almost) pay the Sheriff’s contract in full (making up the deficit left by the too low Public Safety Fee).
Note: When former Mayor Jon Ball was in office, the sheriff’s contract was discussed frequently, both in meetings and in a Town Hall meeting where council asked citizens for ideas on how the city might make up the difference between the PSF and the actual cost of the sheriff’s contract.
Upshot from June 11: Options are to increase city taxes (which would need to go on the ballot and very likely would not pass), to increase the safety fee, or to eliminate a city staff member.
The current council opted for the reorganization and elimination of one staff member.
Interim Admin John Edwards Added, “I know the staff reductions are not an easy thing to do, but we’re caught between a rock and a hard place. We just do not have revenue available to cover our costs. And we’re not the only town, unfortunately, doing this.”
Additionally, it was clarified that a new staff position for streets would be paid for from the Streets Fund not the General Fund – so their salary is not part of the expense/savings of the reorganization.
The Street Fund is largely funded by the state and per Oregon law it must be used for street/transportation related work. Therefore, those monies cannot be used toward the Sheriff’s contract, so the salary for the new street employee doesn’t factor into calculations for the reorganization which will only save monies the General Fund (which will go to the sheriff’s contract).
In her written statement Swendener erroneously included the salary for the new street employee in her “overall calculation” of 26/27 “total personnel” costs stating the reorganization would not provide any cost savings for 26/27.
It will save costs in the General Fund, not in the Streets Fund. Government budgeting is complex, to say the least, and as a rule there will be increases in some funds due to inflation, salary raises, gas prices, etc. With the reorganization council is lowering costs where they can to ensure the city continues to have a police presence.
With Q&A over, council proceeded to make a motion to adopt the 26/27 budget with no changes arising from the June 11 Public Hearing. The motion carried 3/1 (Councilor Paige Winfrey, who did not attend the May 26 Budget Meeting, was the “no” vote with no comment or explanation).
Then council made the two annual “boilerplate” motions, one certifying the city provides four or more municipal services (state requirement) and one declaring the city’s election to receive state revenues (state requirement). Both of these carried 4/0.
