On the agenda: Prineville meeting — Data Center (Oct 23)

1. Budget Committee Meeting Material
Documents:
CROOK COUNTY BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 23 - 2025 PACKET 3228 10 - 23 - 2025.PDF
CROOK COUNTY BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 23 - 2025 PUBLIC NOTICE 10 - 23 - 2025.PDF
CROOK COUNTY BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 23 - 2025 AGENDA 2438 10 - 23 - 2025.PDF

CROOK COUNTY
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
Agenda
Thursday, October 23, 2025, at 12:30 pm

Crook County Justice Center, Room 120 l 260 NW 2nd Street l Prineville, OR
Members of the public and media are welcome to attend in person or via Zoom:
Phone: 1-253-215-8782; Meeting ID: 947 6798 4848; Meeting Passcode: 971566

12:30 pm

Call to Order

12:35 pm

PUBLIC COMMENT

1:05 pm

Review Minutes of May 12, 2025, for Approval

1:10 pm

Presentation of Sustainable Long-Term funding Options for the Sheriff’s Office
Budget Officer

3:10 pm

Break

3:20 pm

PUBLIC COMMENT

3:35 pm

Budget Committee Discussion

Budget Committee Chair

4:30 pm

Meeting Adjourned

Budget Committee Chair

Budget Committee Chair

Budget Committee

CROOK COUNTY BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 12, 2025
Crook County Budget Committee met in a scheduled meeting. The meeting was held on
Monday, May 12, 2025, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and was held at the Crook County
Justice Center, located at 260 NW 2nd Street, Prineville, OR 97754. The principal subject
discussed was the budget for the fiscal year July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026.
Committee Members Present: Commissioner Seth Crawford, Commissioner Susan
Hermreck, Commissioner Brian Barney, William “Bill” Anderson, Scott Tibbs, and Steve
Brown
Absentees: None
Presenters: County Manager Will Van Vactor; Budget Manager Jamie Berger; County
Clerk Cheryl Seely; Landfill Manager Jacquie Davis; Facilities Director James Preuss;
County Counsel Eric Blaine; Library Director Sarah Beeler; Sheriff John Gautney;
District Attorney Kari Hathorn; Fairgrounds Manager Casey Daly; Health and Human
Services Director Katie Plumb; Road Superintendent Brad Haynes; Community
Development Director John Eisler; Airport Manager Kelly Coffelt; Weed Control
Supervisor Thomas Laird; Assessor Jon Soliz; HR Director Meghan McKee;
Others Present in Person or Via Zoom: Legal Assistant Alex Solterbeck; Administration
Executive Assistant and Communication Officer Sarah Puerner; Administrative
Executive Assistant Breyanna Cupp; IT Operations Manager Blaine Cheney; Patrol
Lieutenant Mitch Madden; Administrative Division Manager Stephanie Wilson;
Community Corrections Lieutenant Aaron Boyce; Emergency Manager AJ Crawford;
Jail Commander Andrew Rasmussen; Treasurer Galan Carter; Health and Human
Services Deputy Director Camille Day; Administrative Services Manager Katrina
Weitman;
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m.
County Manager Will Van Vactor provided an introduction of the committee members.
The budget committee discussed appointing a chairperson for the committee.
MOTION to nominate Bill Anderson as chairperson of the budget committee. No
discussion. Commissioner Hermreck votes Aye, Commissioner Barney votes Aye.
Commissioner Crawford votes Aye, Committee Member Steve Brown votes Aye,
Committee Member Scott Tibbs votes Aye, and Committee Member Bill Anderson votes
Aye. Motion carried 6-0.
County Manager Will Van Vactor opened the committee meeting with a budget message,
noting that the FY 2026 proposed budget was developed amid economic uncertainty,
ongoing organizational restructuring, and a push for greater transparency. He described
the budget as conservative and focused on essential services and long-term
sustainability. Will presented key figures, including the general fund, appropriations,
contingency, and reserves. He also reviewed strategic goals, budget challenges and
actions, total budget, personnel changes, capital outlay, fee adjustments, property tax
and levy information, and key points from the budget process. He concluded by
Crook County Budget Committee
Minutes of May 12, 2025 Meeting

Page 1

expressing appreciation for the budget committee, board of commissioners, staff, and
the commitment of Crook County employees.
Will explained that a potential refund credit may be issued due to an unresolved appeal
in the Oregon Tax Court concerning the centrally assessed value of intangible property.
Jamie Berger presented the proposed budget for the General Fund, including an
overview of its resources and requirements. Christina Haron followed with an
explanation of the non-departmental funds, describing this account as a "catch-all" for
county items that don’t fall under specific departments. The presentation also covered
the Internal Service Departments, which include Administration and the Board of
Commissioners, Legal Counsel, Finance, Human Resources, Information Technology,
and Facilities.
Administration: Will Van Vactor presented the proposed budget for Administration
and the Board of Commissioners. He noted that the County’s form of governance
changed in March 2024, with a new County Manager hired in November 2024. The
primary goal of the Administration is to deliver the highest possible level of service
within the limits of available and allocated resources. For FY26, the Administration will
focus on finalizing both the Facilities and Communications Plans, as well as supporting
county-wide efforts to evaluate core services across departments. Will also informed the
Budget Committee about the key performance indicators (KPIs) included in the
proposed budget and noted that a live survey is currently underway to collect data in
support of those KPIs.
County Counsel: Eric Blaine presented the proposed budget for County Legal Counsel
and outlined the department's key goals. These include developing and delivering
training as requested, collaborating with the Board of Commissioners, County Manager,
and department directors to identify opportunities to offload or improve non-legal or
non-essential functions, and transitioning the office to focus exclusively on providing
legal services and related training.
Finance: Christina Haron presented the proposed budget for the Finance Department
and outlined key departmental goals. These include continuing the implementation of
the new ERP system and updated Chart of Accounts, along with integration across other
County software platforms. Additional priorities are updating procedures and policies to
align with new ERP workflow capabilities, enhancing internal controls, and streamlining
Accounts Payable processes. The department also aims to improve both internal and
external financial reporting, including the use of encumbrances and the implementation
of a contract and grant management system within the ERP.
Human Resources: Meghan McKee presented the goals for the Human Resources
department, focusing on the continued build-out and implementation of NeoGov
(HRIS). The recruiting and onboarding modules are scheduled to go live in summer
2025, with a full system-wide launch planned for January 2026. Additional goals
include updating job descriptions and the employee handbook, targeting completion by
Crook County Budget Committee
Minutes of May 12, 2025 Meeting

Page 2

summer 2025, obtaining SHRM certification, and completing exit interviews, which will
be incorporated into NeoGov in 2025.
Information Technology: Will Van Vactor presented the goals for the IT
department, which include reassessing and continuing the implementation of the
Strategic Road Map, implementing a new department structure, and advancing the
HRIS and Finance ERP software implementations. The department’s focus is to build on
a strong IT foundation to deliver excellent service across the organization. This includes
enhancing IT staff and countywide training, increasing investment in cybersecurity and
critical infrastructure, and conducting an assessment of the existing software stack.
Facilities: James Preuss presented the goals for the Facilities team, which include
successfully commissioning and operating the new Justice Center, conducting a
comprehensive review of all County facilities to identify cost-saving opportunities, and
assessing and finalizing the County’s space requirements. Additionally, the team plans
to initiate the design phase for the Courthouse renovation and develop plans for
buildings that will be vacated.
Sheriff: John Gautney provided an overview of the Sheriff’s Office, highlighting recent
accomplishments and ongoing challenges. In 2024, the jail processed 1,258 bookings,
averaging 105 per month, and maintained several programs addressing substance abuse
and transition issues. Court security handled over 12,800 people entering through
security, recovering numerous weapons and prohibited items. Patrol services saw a 22%
increase in calls for service, with additional deputies allowing more proactive
enforcement, resulting in fewer complaints and increased impaired driving arrests.
Technological upgrades and new vehicles have improved safety and communication.
Parole and Probation adapted to recent state law changes, with manageable caseloads
and the introduction of the state-funded L.E.A.D.S. program to support drug user
accountability and treatment. Emergency and Special Services experienced an increase
in Search and Rescue operations and mutual aid assistance, including wildfire
responses. A new Emergency Manager updated key county emergency plans.
Challenges ahead include courthouse security, training new hires, rising violent crime
caseloads, mental health issues, homelessness, staff reductions leading to burnout and
mandatory overtime, impacts from recent legislation (HB4002 and Measure 114), and
decreasing grant funding. Sheriff Gautney stressed that without additional staffing—
specifically 13.5 unfunded FTEs—the office cannot maintain current service levels, and
losing positions could force the shutdown of patrol shifts. The board discussed mental
health funding and the jail’s capacity for inmates with such needs. Funding for the
L.E.A.D.S. program was noted as $150K, the minimum state allocation.
District Attorney: Kari Hathorn presented the budget for the District Attorney’s
office, outlining the services provided, key highlights, and challenges faced. The office is
currently short-staffed, lacking a Chief Deputy District Attorney, and experiencing high
turnover among Deputy District Attorneys. Increased costs for training and recruiting
are impacting on the budget. To address these issues, the DA is proposing the addition
of an Investigator position. Challenges include heavy caseloads, with the DA handling
Crook County Budget Committee
Minutes of May 12, 2025 Meeting

Page 3

over 200 cases and Deputy District Attorneys managing between 120 to 150 cases each,
as well as the lack of available attorneys to appear in court and at grand jury sessions.
Juvenile: Jamie Berger and Christina Haron presented the Juvenile Department’s
budget. Christina shared on the record notes from Erika Frickey, who was unable to
attend the meeting, outlining services provided and potential changes to line items. The
presentation included a review of the department’s highlights, challenges, and services.
Assessor: Jon Soliz presented the Assessor’s Office budget and highlighted several key
areas. He noted the successful completion of a software conversion, with mobile
Assessor tools now fully ready for field use. The department has maintained a strong
focus on staff retention and training to ensure consistent service delivery and hired a
new position within the last year. The office continues to provide essential services,
including the assessment of market value for all real and personal property, and remains
open to the public from 8 AM to 5 PM. Additionally, the department offers detailed,
web-based information to better serve the community.
Jon also discussed current challenges, including the upcoming transition to new web
search software. While the underlying data will remain the same, the format will change,
and the department plans to proactively support frequent users—referred to as “power
users”—in navigating the new platform. The Assessor’s Office continues to provide
reliable services through online data access, in-office support, and a highly experienced
team with over 100 years of combined experience.
County Clerk: Cheryl Seely presented the budget for the County Clerk’s Office and
highlighted several key updates. She noted that the new statewide voter registration
system (ORVIS) was terminated, and the office successfully completed the November
2024 General Election. Preparations are currently underway for the May 2025 Special
District Election, with the May 2026 Primary Election on the horizon for the next fiscal
year. Cheryl also mentioned ongoing work with the Archiving and Records Retention
Committee, including projects involving the Commissioner Journal and road records.
Challenges facing the office include a significant decline in recording activity compared
to previous years, staff succession planning, microfilming of permanent records, space
limitations, and preparation for the upcoming courthouse remodel. Core services
provided by the Clerk’s Office include document recording, ballot signature verification,
and processing public records requests. Additionally, new services such as a digital
research room and a Property Recording Alert Service will be available soon.
Library Director: Sarah Beeler presented the proposed budget for the Crook County
Library, outlining key highlights, challenges, and services. Highlights included an
increased number of library card holders, completion of ADA compliance upgrades,
improvements to the library catalog, and alignment of services with the 2025-2030
Strategic Plan to better serve the county, especially residents in Juniper Canyon.
Challenges focused on staffing shortages, with the library director handling dual roles,
outreach service limitations, and difficult decisions about reducing hours or cutting
services due to budget constraints. The library anticipates losing two Mid Oregon
personnel employees, and vacant positions will be carefully evaluated to maintain
Crook County Budget Committee
Minutes of May 12, 2025 Meeting

Page 4

service levels. To support outreach, a current part-time position will be promoted to fulltime.
Fairgrounds: Casey Daly presented the proposed budget for the Fairgrounds
Department, highlighting key accomplishments, challenges, and services. Highlights
included completion of the new 3,200-square-foot Jockey Room (Caldera Building),
efforts to reduce the annual fair budget deficit, renegotiation of event contracts to
increase revenue, expansion of RV space rentals, support for state revenue measures
SB780 and HB2304, pursuit of additional transient room tax revenue, ongoing upgrades
to Grizzly Mountain Pavilion and arenas, and equipment refreshes. Challenges involve
rising energy and operational costs, aging infrastructure, the need to accommodate
larger events, keeping up with venue technology standards, balancing innovation with
resistance to change, and competition with two other large arena facilities in the county.
Services provided include cost-effective entertainment at the annual fair, support from
4-H, FFA, and the Livestock Sales Committee for fair premiums and judging costs,
expanded open-class exhibits, stable fairgrounds staffing and maintenance, and the use
of an event host to manage set-up and teardown duties.
Health and Human Services: Katie Plumb presented the proposed budget for
Health and Human Services, outlining key highlights, challenges, and services in public
health and mental health. Public health highlights include prevention and health
promotion programs, an updated strategic plan, increased coordination for
communicable disease mitigation, and active engagement in regional and state
initiatives to advocate for Crook County and secure funding. Challenges include
administrative burdens exceeding current capacity, reliance on temporary and siloed
grant funding, space limitations due to staff being split between two buildings, and rapid
internal and external changes. Public health services cover clinical preventive care such
as reproductive health, immunizations, communicable disease prevention, emergency
preparedness, family health programs like WIC and nurse home visiting, prevention
efforts, and environmental health, which has shown stability and consistent outcomes
with a goal of fiscal sustainability. Mental health highlights include the Mental Health
Fund activity beginning FY24, contracted services funded through federal, state, and
insurance sources, and ongoing involvement of the Community Health Advisory Council
to support and ensure accountability for community mental health programs.
Veteran Services: Katie Plumb presented the proposed budget for the Veterans
Services fund, highlighting an increase in new awards and total funds awarded to local
veterans. Staffing remains a challenge due to limited office coverage when both staff
members are out, prompting a request for an additional Veteran Service Officer to
address these limitations. The office provides advocacy and assistance to veterans and
their families in applying for a wide range of benefits from local, state, and federal
agencies. These benefits include service-connected disability compensation, nonservice-connected pensions, widows’ pensions, burial benefits, education assistance,
home improvement grants for handicap accessibility, specially adapted automobile
grants, vocational rehabilitation, clothing allowances, and emergency grant funding.

Crook County Budget Committee
Minutes of May 12, 2025 Meeting

Page 5

Road Department: Brad Haynes presented the proposed budget for the Road
Department, highlighting recent projects such as a 2-mile overlay on Barnes Road from
Barnes Butte to Highway 126, deep base repairs and chip sealing, and an in-house thin
lift leveling course on Upper Davis Loop covering 2 miles. The Transportation System
Plan (TSP) update, led and funded by the Community Development department, was
also noted as a key highlight. Challenges facing the department include catching up on
deferred maintenance amid dwindling revenue streams, grant opportunities being on
hold due to federal administration changes, aging equipment requiring upgrades, and
difficulties with parts availability. Brad also discussed upcoming planned projects.
Community Development: John Eisler presented the proposed budget for the
Planning and Building Department, highlighting that all seven building inspectors hold
all four residential certifications and at least one commercial certification. In fiscal year
2025, the planning department received 272 land use applications, processed 181 onsite
applications, and opened 68 code compliance cases. Challenges for the department
include impacts from rising interest rates and tariffs leading to lower revenue,
difficulties in recruitment and retention, and ongoing regulatory changes. John also
outlined the broad range of services provided by the department, which include
functions within building inspection, land use planning, onsite, code compliance, and
general operations.
Landfill Manager: Jacquie Davis presented the proposed budget for the Landfill fund,
outlining key highlights, challenges, and services. Highlights included the completion of
the Solid Waste Management Plan final report, successful completion of four quarters of
SEM testing for methane, a septic agreement with the City of Prineville, the purchase of
a water truck, an updated franchise agreement with Republic Services, preparations for
implementing the Recycling Modernization Act, and hosting three free community
events. Challenges facing the landfill include continued SEM testing, potential
implementation of methane collection and monitoring systems, new state-mandated
programs, and partial final closure of the construction and demolition (C&D) cell due to
an exterior slope change, all while working to keep public disposal costs low. The landfill
operates as an enterprise fund primarily funded through tipping fees, which are
adjusted as needed to cover operational costs. However, the potential cost of methane
collection and monitoring systems is uncertain and could significantly impact the
landfill’s budget, possibly requiring alternative funding sources.
Airport Manager: Kelly Coffelt presented the proposed Airport budget, highlighting
the completion and implementation of the new business plan and key capital
improvements, including revenue-generating aircraft storage hangars and a $750,000
FAA-funded runway reconstruction project. Challenges include making strategic
decisions for future opportunities and generating enough revenue for long-term selfsustainability. The airport provides a safe, welcoming facility for air travel, training,
emergency services, aircraft maintenance, and refueling. Kelly also discussed current
private and business development, noting the number of available spots at the airport.

Crook County Budget Committee
Minutes of May 12, 2025 Meeting

Page 6

Weed Control: Thomas Laird presented the proposed budget for the Weed Control
Department, outlining key highlights, challenges, and services. Highlights include a goal
to fully recover the cost of operations, continued billing partnership with the Finance
Department, increased public education and outreach through social media and
websites, drafting a strategic plan, and expanding services to the Prineville Airport and
Reservoir Park in FY26. The primary challenge is uncertainty around contract
obligations. Weed Control provides services that, when fully reimbursed through
contracts, offer net benefits to taxpayers by covering areas like public and private lands,
utilities, rights-of-way, riparian zones, and forests. The department also offers free
educational support to landowners to support weed control and wildfire mitigation.
Other Special Revenue Funds: Will Van Vactor, Jamie Berger, and Christina Haron
presented an overview of the County’s special revenue funds to the committee. These
include the County Clerk’s Special Revenue Fund, Community College Education Center
Fund, Risk Management Fund, Title III Fund, Tourism Fund, Video Lottery Fund,
Crook County School Fund, Special Transportation Fund, Surveyor Fund, and Taylor
Grazing Fund.
Capital Projects Fund: Will Van Vactor provided an explanation of the Capital
Projects Fund, while Christina Haron detailed the purpose and operation of the Capital
Asset Reserve Fund and the Debt Service Fund.
Scott Tibbs inquired about a $15,000 general fund allocation to the Wolf Committee,
questioning whether the expenses were for tools. Commissioner Crawford clarified that
the expenses were not for tools but for box lights and other non-lethal deterrents, which
are funded through a state pass-through grant. Commissioner Crawford also explained
that the 10% match requirement only applies to administrative costs, which the Wolf
Committee does not request from the state. The funds in question are entirely grantfunded.
Public Comment: None
Compensation Committee Recommendation: Will Van Vactor presented the
budget committee with the Compensation Committee’s recommendation for elected
official salaries. This year, for the first time, the recommendation included anchoring
salaries to specific steps within the county’s salary schedule and removing stipends. Will
explained the steps each elected official was placed on and the resulting changes.
Commissioner Hermreck inquired why the County Clerk’s salary decreased by $255.
Jamie Berger clarified that the selected step was the closest fit once stipends were
removed. Steve Brown and Scott Tibbs confirmed that the chosen step was the most
appropriate based on the committee’s evaluation.
Scott Tibbs made a MOTION to approve the recommendation for the elected officials’
compensation. Motion seconded by Steve Brown. Commissioner Hermreck mentions
that she would like to abstain and doesn’t feel comfortable voting for her own
compensation. The committee discussed whether elected officials should vote on their
own compensation. Commissioner Hermreck votes Aye, Commissioner Barney votes
Crook County Budget Committee
Minutes of May 12, 2025 Meeting

Page 7

Aye. Commissioner Crawford votes Aye, Committee Member Steve Brown votes Aye,
Committee Member Scott Tibbs votes Aye, and Committee Member Bill Anderson votes
Aye. Motion carried 6-0.
Budget Committee Discussion: Bill Anderson expressed concern about the gap
between the Sheriff’s Office expectations and what the budget can realistically support.
Commissioner Crawford acknowledged the difficulty and proposed working with County
Manager Will Van Vactor to explore funding options. Scott Tibbs agreed, emphasizing
the need for data-driven analysis to show the public what service levels correspond with
different funding levels. He noted that staffing reductions have occurred, and their
impact should be clearly communicated. Steve Brown added that the Sheriff’s $1 million
loan will double next year and warned that anticipated funds, like those from the data
center, are already committed. The budget committee discussed the current challenges
and future planning. Christina noted Will is leading efforts to define core services for
each department. Commissioner Hermreck agreed that long-term financial
sustainability is a broader issue involving more than just the Sheriff’s Office, mentioning
aging infrastructure and other priorities. Commissioner Barney stressed the need for a
concrete action plan. Will concluded by stating that the current proposed budget is a
temporary balance, and the County must ensure organizational alignment around core
services. The budget committee discussed the importance of reviewing departmental
core services and establishing a timeline for developing a long-term plan. Will stated
that the Sheriff’s Office is the top priority in this process, with a goal to complete the
review and have a plan in place by the end of summer. Will noted that in addition to
prioritizing the Sheriff’s Office for a core services review and planning effort by the end
of summer, he anticipates having further analysis and detailed budget information for
the Sheriff’s Office available by mid-fall. The committee also discussed the staffing
issues within the District Attorney’s Office, particularly the difficulty of hiring and
retaining prosecutors. The meeting concluded with the budget committee discussing
scheduling its next session, emphasizing the importance of having a clear sustainability
plan and supporting data prepared in advance. The committee also reviewed procedural
options for how motions should be made, noting that in the previous year, a motion was
passed to allocate any rollover funds to the Sheriff’s Office.
Scott Tibbs made MOTION that any tax base that comes in over the projected 4% for
Crook County get allocated to the Sheriff’s department for this budget period. Motion
seconded by Steve Brown. No discussion. Commissioner Hermreck votes Aye,
Commissioner Barney votes Aye. Commissioner Crawford votes Aye, Committee
Member Steve Brown votes Aye, Committee Member Scott Tibbs votes Aye, and
Committee Member Bill Anderson votes Aye. Motion carried 6-0.
Bill Anderson made MOTION that the budget committee of Crook County, Oregon
approve the budget for 2026 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025, as proposed in the
amount of $132,182,000.00. Motion seconded by Scott Tibbs. No discussion.
Commissioner Hermreck votes Aye, Commissioner Barney votes Aye. Commissioner
Crawford votes Aye, Committee Member Steve Brown votes Aye, Committee Member
Scott Tibbs votes Aye, and Committee Member Bill Anderson votes Aye. Motion carried
6-0.
Crook County Budget Committee
Minutes of May 12, 2025 Meeting

Page 8

Bill Anderson made MOTION that the budget committee of Crook County, Oregon
approve property taxes for the 2026 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025, in the amount of
$3.8702 per $1000.00 of assessed value for the permanent rate tax levy and in the
amount $673,000.00 for the general obligation bond levy. Motion seconded by Steve
Brown. No discussion. Commissioner Hermreck votes Aye, Commissioner Barney votes
Aye. Commissioner Crawford votes Aye, Committee Member Steve Brown votes Aye,
Committee Member Scott Tibbs votes Aye, and Committee Member Bill Anderson votes
Aye. Motion carried 6-0.
Jamie informed the budget committee that the time scheduled for the following day
would no longer be needed, as the committee successfully completed all its intended
work during the current meeting.
Commissioner Hermreck made MOTION that budget committee as formed will meet
on October 23rd to discuss the next steps to review levels of service across the
organization, review any sort of action plans, recommendations, etc. Motion seconded
by Commissioner Crawford. No discussion. Commissioner Hermreck votes Aye,
Commissioner Barney votes Aye. Commissioner Crawford votes Aye, Committee
Member Steve Brown votes Aye, Committee Member Scott Tibbs votes Aye, and
Committee Member Bill Anderson votes Aye. Motion carried 6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Breyanna Cupp

Crook County Budget Committee
Minutes of May 12, 2025 Meeting

Page 9

MEMORANDUM
To:
Crook County Budget Committee
From: Will VanVactor, County Manager
Date: October 22, 2025
RE:
Departmental Service Levels, Financial Sustainability, and Sheriff’s Office Funding
1. Introduction
The Budget Committee requested this meeting to assess departmental core service levels and
develop plans for aligning services with available funding, with an emphasis on a sustainability
plan for the Sheriff’s Office, supported by data analysis.
2. Schedule for the Afternoon:
•

Introduction

•

Overview of the Core Services Project

•

Discussion on economic challenges for counties

•

Review of current budget and forecasts

•

Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Options

•

Sustainability Options for the Sheriff’s Office

•

Other Departments of Note (time permitting)

3. Overview of Materials Provided:
Detailed analysis and memos are attached for your review, aiding informed decision-making.
•

Memo re: Core Services Project

•

Memo re: Economic Challenges

•

Memo re: Crook County Forecasts (General Fund and Sheriff’s Office Fund)

•

Memo re: Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Planning Discussion

•

Memo re: Sheriff’s Office Sustainability Plan

4. Conclusion
Based on the information provided today, staff seeks the Budget Committee’s feedback and
recommendations as we move forward with establishing clear guidelines and goals for Fiscal
Year 2027 and beyond.
Page 1 of 1

MEMORANDUM
To:
Crook County Budget Committee
From: Will Van Vactor, County Manager
Date: October 22, 2025
RE:
Status of Core Services Review Project
Purpose
This memo provides an update on the County’s core services projects, elaborates on the
benefits of the core service review and definition process, and outlines steps moving forward
toward Board acceptance by January 2026. The core services review process is designed as a
standing practice, not a one-time effort, to promote organizational clarity and fiscal
sustainability.
Status Update: Core Services Project
Most departments have provided draft descriptions of their core services, and the Sheriff’s
Office, Health Department, and Library have already presented their draft descriptions to the
Board. A special meeting of the Board has been tentatively scheduled for the week of
November 10th to discuss core services descriptions for Community Development, Natural
Resources, and Landfill. Several additional special meetings will be scheduled in December to
address the core services descriptions for the internal service departments, as well as the
Assessor’s Office, Clerk’s Office, Landfill, and Weed Control. The core services review process
will remain iterative, with ongoing refinements anticipated through both the mid-year and
annual county review cycles.
Benefits of the Core Service Review (Initial and Ongoing)
The purpose of the core services review is to create clarity, alignment, and shared
understanding about what we do and why we do it. The intent is to equip the County, its
departments, and the public with the tools and knowledge needed to make informed decisions,
plan effectively, and continuously improve our service to the community.
1. Alignment with Strategic Goals
•

Ensures departmental activities and resource use are directly linked to
countywide strategic objectives, helping avoid misalignment and mission drift.

•

Provides a framework for deliberate, collaborative adjustments as Board
priorities and community expectations evolve—with the intention of
strengthening services.
Page 1 of 3

2. Clarity in Resource Allocation
•

Enhances evidence-based budgeting by establishing clear criteria for prioritizing
essential versus discretionary services, supporting wise stewardship.

•

Supports disciplined decision-making, reducing the likelihood of reactive or ad
hoc allocations during both tight and strong financial cycles.

3. Improved Accountability and Transparency
•

Clearly communicates to staff and the public what the County considers core,
providing transparent rationale for changes in service levels or resource
allocation when needed.

•

Establishes an explicit standard for departments to reference in public
discussions, internal planning, and budget requests.

4. Platform for Continuous Improvement
•

Promotes a culture of regular assessment, facilitating ongoing adjustments in
service delivery practices to reflect changes in funding, regulatory requirements,
or community needs.

•

Enables interdepartmental sharing of best practices and operational
improvements as part of routine management, focusing on innovation and
support.

5. Strategic Planning and Long-term Fiscal Health
•

Lays the groundwork for robust multi-year planning and scenario analysis,
strengthening the County’s ability to anticipate and adapt to fiscal or operational
changes.

•

Provides a clear and data-driven justification for resource requests during budget
hearings and when communicating with external stakeholders.

6. Enhanced Interdepartmental Collaboration
•

Establishes a common understanding of countywide service priorities,
encouraging cooperative problem-solving and mutual support.

•

Supports consistent performance expectations and accountability, breaking down
silos and enabling countywide problem-solving initiatives.

7. Establishment of a Common Understanding
Page 2 of 3

•

Develops a shared language and mutual clarity among the Board, department
leadership, and staff as to what the County’s fundamental responsibilities are.

•

Increases transparency and trust with the public, ensuring residents and
stakeholders know which services are essential, and why they are prioritized in
financial and policy decisions.

•

Makes policy and operational discussions more constructive and less stressful,
since everyone is working from an agreed foundation.

Timeline and Ongoing Implementation
•

By January 31, 2026: All departments will have Board-reviewed and finalized core
services descriptions, to serve as a foundation for FY 2026-27 budgeting and future
years.

•

Ongoing: The core service review process will be integrated into the County’s regular
mid-year and annual management reviews, supporting a culture of continuous
improvement, adaptability, and strategic focus.

Conclusion
Defining, reviewing, and institutionalizing departmental core services is essential to Crook
County’s delivery of legally mandated and high-priority programs in a fiscally responsible
manner. Making this a standing part of our mid-year and annual review cycles will enhance
organizational resilience, transparency, and the County’s ability to respond to both existing
needs and unforeseen challenges.

Page 3 of 3

MEMORANDUM
To:
Crook County Budget Committee
From: Will VanVactor, County Manager
Date: October 22, 2025
RE:
Economic Headwinds Facing Oregon Counties
Introduction
Many Oregon’s counties face significant economic pressures, driven by both statewide and local
challenges. This memo outlines those broader fiscal headwinds and provides context with examples
from other Oregon counties.
Economic Headwinds Across Oregon Counties
Numerous Oregon counties are experiencing structural budget deficits, workforce reductions, and
service delivery constraints. Key contributors include:
•

Limited Property Tax Growth:
o Constitutional Caps: Measures 5
and 50 restrict annual property
tax increases, capping them at
3% regardless of actual market
value increases.
o Revenue Constraints: These caps
limit the ability to respond to
inflationary pressures or spikes
in service demand, such as those
from population growth. 1
o Long-Term Effects: Inadequate
revenue growth reduces funding
for critical that does not
correspond with increased service level demand, threatens a local government’s ability to
provide those critical services.

•

Escalating Public Safety and Labor Costs:

Crook County remains one of the fastest growing counties in Oregon, increasing the need for service delivery across the
organization. https://www.opb.org/article/2025/03/14/oregon-us-census-data-cities-population-multnomah-countyportland-metro/
1

Page 1 of 4

o Personnel Costs: Salaries, benefits, and overtime for public safety personnel (police, fire,
EMTs) have increased sharply, largely due to labor agreements and rising pension
obligations.
o PERS Obligations: The Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) contributions continue
to rise, putting additional pressure on county budgets. 2
o Service Impact: High labor costs may force counties to reduce staff or limit service
enhancements, impacting community safety and service delivery.
•

State and Federal Funding Instability:
o Expired Programs: The cessation of federal programs such as Secure Rural Schools (SRS) has
removed significant revenue streams, crucial for infrastructure and educational support.
o State Budget Fluctuations: Fluctuations in state funding due to revenue shortfalls impact
local service provision and require counties to seek alternative funding sources.
o Risk Factors: Political and policy changes, such as federal immigration stances, can threaten
funding stability, adding uncertainty to budget planning.

•

Inflationary Pressure:
o Rising Costs: Inflation increases the cost of materials, supplies, and capital projects, straining
county budgets.
o Health Benefits: Healthcare costs for county employees continue to climb, consuming a
larger share of budgets each year.
o Operational Impact: Inflation erodes purchasing power, reducing the ability to maintain
current service levels without additional funding.

These factors collectively create a challenging fiscal environment, necessitating careful planning and
strategic financial management to maintain service stability and fiscal health.
Layoffs and Service Reductions in Peer Counties
The table below provides examples of budget actions taken by other Oregon counties, including
triggers and whether their decisions were reactive (responding to immediate funding loss) or proactive
(addressing projections):
//

While Crook County is not generally a participating employer, Oregon law allows (and in some cases requires) counties to
provide PERS coverage for certain law enforcement positions. This is the case in Crook County, where qualifying public
safety employees are enrolled in PERS consistent with state standards for similar roles.
2

Page 2 of 4

County

Reasons for Budget
Reductions / Layoffs

Actions Taken

Timing (Trigger)

Lane

low property taxes,
labor costs, sunset
of federal timber
receipts

Patrol, jail staff layoffs; reduced Reactive (federal
jail beds; vacant positions open funding loss), then
longer
proactive

Jackson

Rising PERS and
healthcare, flat tax
rate, lost federal
funds

Parole/probation cuts, jail
closure cycle

Reactive
(immediate
federal revenue
loss)

Marion

Slow property tax
growth, inflation,
uncertain state
funds

Hiring freeze, layoffs, trimmed
public health

Mixed: slowdowns
and forecasts

Clatsop

Inflation,
constrained revenue
from timber, loss of
one-time federal
funds

Reduced hours, eliminated
Proactive
vacancies, deferring purchases, (forecast-based)
consolidated departments,
monitoring training & travel
expenses

Douglas Loss of state/federal
timber funds, public
safety cost
escalation

Sheriff office staff, general fund Initial shock,
cuts
followed by
ongoing
adjustments

Curry

Reduced admin/public safety
staff, consolidated functions

General fund
shortfall, dropped
timber money,
increased PERS

Acute funding
loss, followed by
annual
reassessment

These actions underscore that counties are acting both in response to direct funding losses and to
longer-term unsustainable trends identified through financial forecasting.
Current State Budget Trends and Federal Funding Risks
Recent trends indicate that the State of Oregon is also facing its own significant fiscal challenges,
resulting in reduced or unpredictable shared revenues for counties. Notably:

Page 3 of 4

•

The Oregon state budget has faced revenue shortfalls and slower-than-expected growth, leading
to constrained support for counties and local programs—including public health, justice, and
transportation.

•

Despite some one-time state allocations (such as ARPA pass-through and capital project grants
in previous years), base funding for core services, including public health, has not kept pace
with inflation or service demand. State aid for most programs has not kept pace with increased
need and demand and remains a recurring challenge for many counties and their respective
departments.

•

State budget discussions have included warnings that Oregon’s sanctuary status—and
compliance with federal immigration policies—may put portions of federal grant funding at risk,
compounding uncertainty in funding for a range of critical services.3

As a result, counties have seen reduced or flat state aid formulas for many county services. This forces
counties to look to local cost-sharing, local option levies, or fee increases to maintain service levels.
Crook County’s Position—FY 2026 Budget Context
While Crook County has thus far avoided the most severe impacts, our FY 2026 budget reflects similar
state and federal funding vulnerabilities. For example:
•

Loss of Secure Rural Schools Funds: Crook County’s Road Agency will receive no SRS funding for
FY 2025 or FY 2026; unless Congress reauthorizes the program, this could be the final year of
agency operations. The $1.5 million per year previously supported a significant share of county
road activities, and no new SRS revenue is projected.

•

State Funding Instability: Portions of Crook County’s operational funding (e.g., public health,
fairgrounds, transportation) rely on state support, which—while sometimes supplemented with
one-time grants or funding sources (like ARPA)—is not assured for ongoing or future years.

•

General and Programmatic Uncertainties: Many county functions, from public health to
veteran services, cite as a primary challenge the “instability of state and federal funding.” State
funding lags behind the need and has forced Crook County to supplement services via grants,
partnerships and sometimes direct funding.

Conclusion
Crook County’s fiscal environment must be viewed in context with the broader economic and statutory
constraints facing all Oregon counties. By taking measured steps today, we aim to ensure continued
community stability in the face of headwinds outside of the County’s control. Ongoing engagement and
information-sharing remain central to strengthening Crook County’s resilience.

The state’s sanctuary status has directly precluded some Crook County departments, including the Sheriff’s Office, from
applying for certain federally funded grants.
3

Page 4 of 4

MEMORANDUM
To:
Crook County Budget Committee
From: Will Van Vactor, County Manager
Date: October 22, 2025
RE:
General Fund & Sheriff’s Office Forecasts and Post-2030 Data Center Revenue Outlook

General Fund Forecast Analysis
1. Assumptions
•

Baseline: The forecast builds off the adopted FY26 budget, assuming approximately 96%
actual expenditure on the appropriated budget.

•

Revenue Growth: Property tax growth is forecast at 4% in FY27, followed by 3%
annually thereafter, reflecting a conservative posture below long-term historical average.
The forecast includes cautious estimates for additions to the tax base from new data center
developments in FY28 and FY30.

•

Population & Demand: Uses Portland State University projections, but notes local trend
exceeds these, potentially understating future demand.

•

Expenditure Growth: Materials & services escalate in FY28–29 as departments reoccupy
renovated Courthouse and offices. Capital outlay includes scheduled tech and vehicle
replacements.

2. Fund Structure and Revenue Streams
•

Allocation of Taxes: For FY26, the General Fund receives 26.9% of property taxes; the rest is
allocated to the Sheriff’s Office Fund (57.7%), Library (13.8%), and Historical Museum
(1.6%). Other revenues (e.g., PILT, alcohol, solar) are split 42.3% (General Fund) and 57.7%
(Sheriff’s).

•

Key Revenues: For FY26: property taxes ($3.378M), in lieu payments ($2.019M), transient
room tax ($250K), federal PILT ($745K), and various grants/fees totaling over $2.3M.

3. Forecast Outcomes & Fiscal Condition
•

Fund Balance & Policy: The General Fund’s budgeted beginning fund balance for FY26 is
$10.2M—up by $1.5M year over year. The contingency is budgeted at $7M (38.7% of
expenditure), meeting the county’s fiscal policy target of 5 months’ net working capital.

•

Transfers/Obligations: FY26 includes notable one-time transfers to other funds (e.g., $1M to
Sheriff’s Office; $815K to Facilities) to support unfunded expenses. Regular transfers to
Page 1 of 7

Health & Human Services, Fairgrounds, and Veterans continue, as do special payments to
agencies.
4. Five-Year Outlook & Risks
•

Near-Term: The fund balance remains at or above policy minimums through FY27.

•

Medium-Term (post-2027):

•

•

Revenue growth from property taxes is likely to lag expenditure growth due to
conservative escalation, scheduled increases in facility and operating costs, and the
expiration of one-time state/federal funds.

•

As additional property tax revenue is routed through the General Fund beginning in
FY28 (for redistributive purposes and new bond debt service), there could be
additional pressure on the fund that risks pushing the balance below policy targets
unless offset by new recurring revenue, expenditure restraint, or both.

Contingency Planning: Strategic adjustments, either reduction in ongoing commitments or
increased revenue, may be necessary to maintain fund solvency and compliance.

5. Conclusion
The General Fund, under the adopted FY26 budget forecast, demonstrates short-term stability with
strong reserves but faces fiscal tightening as early as FY28 due to conservative revenue growth,
scheduled cost increases, and major transfers. Active management, particularly as new assessed
value from data centers is phased in and major bond payments commence, is essential to avoid
depletion of reserves and sustaining essential county operations.
Sheriff’s Office Fund Forecast Analysis
1. Forecast Foundations and Key Variables
•

Baseline: The forecast builds from the adopted FY26 Sheriff’s Office Fund budget, assuming
approximately 96% of appropriated funds will be expended annually.

•

Revenue Growth: Property tax growth is forecast at 4% in FY27, then 3% per year for 2028–
2030—consistent with a conservative estimate well below long-term historical averages.
Conservative assumptions are also applied for the timing and ramp-up of new data center
AV .

•

Population & Demand: Based on Portland State University projections, but local population
and service demand has exceeded these in recent years, implying actual demand could
surpass forecasted levels.

Page 2 of 7

•

Expenditure Growth: The forecast maintains reduced staffing at the FY26 budgeted FTE
level (holding FTE flat), with future cost escalation for personnel, retirement, and benefits
accounted for using known inflation and contract increases. Materials and services and
capital costs are projected according to the adopted five-year capital schedule.

2. Fund Structure and Revenue Streams
•

Tax Allocation: The Sheriff’s Office receives 57.7% of property tax ($2.2331 per $1,000 AV),
plus 57.7% of PILT, alcohol, and PILOT revenue sources, net of contractual distributions to
City/Fire District.

•

Major FY26 Revenues: $7.226M property tax, $1.062M PILOT, $1.201M state Community
Corrections (grant funded), $1.017M federal PILT, and one-time LATCF spend-down of
$1.389M. One-time transfers: $1.0M from the General Fund and $1.0M from the Capital
Asset Reserve. Budgeted beginning fund balance: $3.821M. Total FY26 resources:
$19.318M.
o NOTE: We originally budgeted a 4% increase in taxable assessed value (TAV) for FY25,
with Budget Committee direction to allocate any additional property tax revenue to
the Sheriff’s Office. The actual TAV increase was 6.2%, resulting in approximately
$270,000 in additional property tax revenue for the Sheriff’s Office for FY26. This
figure accounts for a 94% collection rate and withholding for the Public Resource
Center (PRC).
o NOTE: Due to vacancies, actual beginning fund balance for the Sheriff’s Office is
anticipated to come in higher than estimated.

•

One-Time Revenues: The adopted budget heavily relies on one-time resources (transfers
and federal revenue) to temporarily support current operational levels.

3. Forecast Outcomes & Fiscal Condition
•

Fund Balance & Policy: A contingency of $4.083M is maintained in FY26, but the fund
balance is projected to fall below policy minimums without additional action.

•

Expenditure Structure: FY26 appropriations total $19.318M across law enforcement, jail,
parole/probation, and emergency/special services with FTE levels reduced and most new
costs limited to contractual/step increases, insurance, and select capital outlay (e.g.,
vehicles, equipment).

•

Service Level: The five-year forecast maintains reduced service/staffing levels to slow the
structural gap but projects that an additional 30%–35% in annual revenue would be needed
to maintain FY26 service levels.

Page 3 of 7

4. Five-Year Outlook & Risks
•

Short Term (FY26-FY27): Fund achieves compliance with required minimum net working
capital and contingency.

•

Medium Term (FY28-FY30): Expenditure growth (primarily in personnel and insurance) is
forecasted to outpace the 3%-4% property tax growth. The adopted forecast shows fund
balance reaching negative territory by FY28.

•

Service/Staffing Risk: Maintaining current service levels beyond FY27 will require a
combination of new recurring revenue and reducing expenses.

5. Conclusion
Under the FY26 adopted budget and forecast assumptions, the Sheriff’s Office Fund’s short-term
fiscal posture is temporarily stabilized by reserves, one-time support, and vacancies.
However, without new recurring revenue or additional cuts, the fund will no longer meet
reserve/fund balance policy by FY28, and a 30%–35% increase in revenues would be needed to
maintain FY26-level service by 2030. This forecast underscores the need for sustainable funding
alternatives or operational reconfigurations to maintain public safety standards in Crook County.

Sheriff’s Office Fund: Consultant (Divergent) Forecast
Earlier this year the County retained an outside firm, Divergent Engineering Services LLC, to conduct
current budget analysis (including the Sheriff’s Office), property tax revenue forecast, and a budget
impact analysis (to evaluate financial impact of forecasted property tax revenue to the Sheriff’s Office).
The consultant’s modeling is generally consistent with the County’s in the 2026–2030 transition period,
with small variations depending on growth and cost assumptions.
•

Scenarios: Baseline and high-growth models (using 5.51%–6.34% annual property tax growth)
both indicate annual operating gaps that would draw down fund balance by FY 2028–29,
requiring additional revenue or expenditure reductions.

•

Sensitivity and Risks: The consultant explicitly notes that most of the anticipated new revenue
from expiring data center exemptions does not arrive in full until after 2030, owing to the
phased expiration of multiple enterprise zone agreements and the timing of when new facilities
are added to the tax roll. Year-to-year personal property fluctuations and the potential for
delayed investment or changes in depreciation cycles mean that surpluses should not be
assumed to fully materialize in 2030.

•

Summary: Both internal and external forecasts converge on the need for new, reliable revenue
to bridge the gap through at least 2030.
Page 4 of 7

Data Center Revenue
•

Consultant estimates show a ramp-up of available property tax from data centers beginning in
2028 as exemptions expire but ramping gradually over several years as additional facilities
phase in.

•

While the consultant does model scenarios with potential surpluses modeled at $3–4 million
per year net of Justice Center debt service by 2030, the narrative repeatedly notes that this is an
optimistic scenario, and actual annual surpluses of this magnitude may not materialize until
later in the decade (potentially as late as 2032–2035) due to uncertainties in build-out and
replacement cycles, personal property volatility, and corporate capital planning schedules.

•

The report advises regular reassessment of both assessed value additions and personal property
schedules, noting, “the timing of server replacements will likely cause large swings in the
County’s tax revenue.

•

Key Caution: As exemptions expire, early variability may persist in early years (e.g., FY 2027-28)
due to exemption expirations that occur in later years and volatility of personal property
valuation due to replacement timing.
Table: Data Center Property Tax Revenue
Fiscal
Year

New Major
Data
Center
Added

Estimated Annual
Additional Property Tax
Revenue ($ millions)

Notes

202728

Vitesse 1

$2.9–$4.4

Range reflects scenario differences
in assessed value and depreciation
schedule; this revenue will cover
debt service for the Justice Center.

202930

Apple 1

$6.1-7.3 (cumulative)

Range reflects scenario differences
in assessed value and depreciation
schedule; these forecasted figures
are cumulative.

203233

Apple 2

$8.0-$10.1 (cumulative)

Range reflects scenario differences
in assessed value and depreciation
schedule; these forecasted figures
are cumulative.

Page 5 of 7

203334

Vitesse 2

$10.8-$11.8 (cumulative)

Range reflects scenario differences
in assessed value and depreciation
schedule; these forecasted figures
are cumulative.

203536

Vitesse 3

$26.7-$31.6 (cumulative)

Range reflects scenario differences
in assessed value and depreciation
schedule; these forecasted figures
are cumulative.

Strategic Implication:
It is prudent to describe post-2030 as a period of “gradual but accelerating recurring revenue growth”
with potential to fully stabilize the General Fund and Sheriff’s Office Fund by the mid-2030s—not to
assume immediate, sustained $3–4M surpluses in 2030. Annual forecast updates and contingency
planning will be necessary to calibrate fiscal and staffing commitments to the timing and volatility of
this new revenue stream.

Summary
•

Both County and consultant forecasts show General Fund and Sheriff’s Office sustainability in
the near term will require a combination of new recurring revenue, further cost containment, or
service reductions through 2030.

•

With disciplined bridge-year management and Board policy choices, the County can maintain
core services while positioning for post-2030 revenue growth.
Page 6 of 7

•

Post-2030 data center revenues hold substantial promise, but prudent, evidence-based policy
should account for the risk of annual variability, timing delays, and the need for careful reserve
and expenditure planning.

•

The Board should revisit allocation policies annually; communicate with the public and be
prepared to adjust as conditions evolve.

Page 7 of 7

MEMORANDUM
To:
Crook County Budget Committee
From: Will Van Vactor, County Manager
Date: October 22, 2025
RE:
Options for General Fund Stabilization – FY 2027 Budget Development

Overview
Crook County is entering FY 2027 from a position of resilience, with prudent reserves, stable
service levels, and positive momentum toward new property tax revenue by the end of this
decade. While economic headwinds—such as slowing assessed value growth and rising costs—
require close attention, the County is well-positioned to adapt. Proactively engaging a set of
stabilization and efficiency strategies now will help Crook County maximize opportunity,
safeguard core services, and bridge confidently toward a future sustainable revenues and
service capacity.
The following options are presented for feedback and further development as the County
prepares for FY 2027 and beyond.
Option 1 – Hiring Pause with Exception Process
Description:
Implement a temporary pause on hiring for non-mandated General Fund positions, allowing
exceptions for essential positions, with process oversight by County leadership.
Context:
Personnel expenditure is the County’s largest operating cost. FY 2026 FTE counts, and recent
budget growth reflects population-driven and programmatic expansion.
Potential Impact:
•

Estimated savings of $250,000+ in FY 2027 based on typical avoided hiring costs for 2–4
positions.

•

Effectively “buys time” for planned revenue growth and policy adjustments but may
increase workloads for existing staff.

Page 1 of 8

Pros:
•

Immediate Personnel Cost Control: Avoids new salary and benefit expenditures,
resulting in savings estimated at $250,000+ in FY 2027, with recurring benefit if
continued.

•

Operational Flexibility: Exception process for mission-critical needs.

•

Buys Time for Revenue Growth: Maintains budget balance in the short term as the
County approaches new property tax revenue in the coming years.

•

Avoids Layoffs: Reduces headcount growth without needing to terminate existing staff
or cut filled positions.

•

Clear, Transparent Policy: Exception criteria can be publicly communicated for fairness
and credibility.

•

Well Positioned: With recent investment in technology, including a new ERP and HRIS,
the County is well positioned to find efficiencies in operations to lower burden on
existing staff.

Cons:
•

Workload and Service Pressure: May increase the workload on existing staff, which may
reduce responsiveness and service levels if sustained.

•

Backlog and Morale Risks: Delays in filling vacancies may create operational bottlenecks
and negatively impact staff morale.

•

Recruitment and Retention: Extended pauses could make the County less competitive in
hiring and retaining talent, especially if economic conditions improve or labor markets
tighten.

•

Limited Structural Impact: Pauses provide near-term savings but do not address longterm structural wage pressures or benefit costs.

Option 2 – Materials & Services (M&S) Cap at FY 2026 Levels
Description:
Instead of a strict freeze, limit annual General Fund M&S budget growth to a small, fixed rate
(e.g., 2% per year) for FY 2027 and FY 2028, below recent historical growth or inflation. For
reference, the adopted FY 2026 General Fund M&S budget is $5,179,509 (see page 196, FY 2026
Budget).
Page 2 of 8

Relevant Context:
•

The historical M&S growth rate in the General Fund was typically 4–6% annually;
forecasted growth through 2030 averages around 3.5%.

•

The FY 2026–FY 2028 forecast includes projected cost increases for facility transitions,
contractual services, technology modernization, and capital-intensive projects.

•

Slowing M&S growth to 2% will result in multi-year savings, but may delay or defer some
planned initiatives.

Potential Cost Savings:
Scenario

Avg. Annual $ Increase

Avg. Annual % Increase

Actual Forecast

~$181,600

~3.5%

2% Cap Scenario

~$106,700

2.0%

Avg. Annual Savings

~75,000

Pros:
•

Predictable, recurring cost control: Multi-year General Fund savings and slower budget
baseline growth while still allowing essential inflationary adjustments.

•

Protects reserves and fund balance: Frees up resources to respond to volatility,
economic headwinds, or revenue shortfalls.

•

Supports moderate operational flexibility: A 2% cap gives departments limited
maneuverability vs. a total freeze.

•

Upholds fiscal discipline: Sends a positive signal to the public and employees regarding
prudent cost management.

Cons:
•

Delays in Forecasted Activities: As noted in the FY 2026 Budget (page 196), incremental
spending in M&S was intended to support new or expanded facilities (e.g., courthouse
occupancy), deferred maintenance, service contracts, and technology upgrades. Limiting
increases may postpone these initiatives or require phased implementation.

•

Departmental constraints: May force departments to make trade-offs between service
levels, maintenance, compliance, or staff support costs.
Page 3 of 8

Option 3 – Cap on General Fund Transfers to Supported Departments
Description:
Establish an annual cap on recurring General Fund transfers to Health & Human Services,
Fairgrounds, Veterans Services, and Community Development (Code Enforcement), set at or
below FY 2026 baseline amounts and reviewed annually.
Relevant Context:
•

FY 2026 transfers: Health ($577,000), Fairgrounds ($250,000), Veterans ($161,000), Code
Enforcement ($30,000).

•

Under current policy, some transfers (e.g., to Health) may rise with fund budgets or
revenue changes unless capped.

Potential Impact:
•

Avoids escalation of transfers if department operational costs increase.

•

Estimated savings grow with underlying fund expenditure growth, especially for Health,
which is tied to 15% of fund expenditures.

•

While actual savings may be nominal, it creates certainty for planning purposes and sets
clear expectations.

Pros:
•

Predictable General Fund Obligations: Limits year-over-year growth in recurring, nonmandated support; improves budget certainty and aids long-range fiscal planning.

•

Encourages Departmental Self-Sufficiency: Incentivizes supported departments to
control costs, seek alternative revenues, or reprioritize within their own funds.

•

Transparent Policy: Offers a clear rationale to stakeholders and the public for stabilizing
the General Fund commitment, reinforcing fairness and consistency.

Cons:
•

Service Level and Program Risk: Supported departments that rely on General Fund
assistance may need to reduce programs, defer service expansions, or curtail activities if
their own revenues do not keep pace with expense growth.

Page 4 of 8

•

Operational Strain: Particularly in Health or Fairgrounds, growth in costs from mandates,
new regulations, or community demand may require program cuts or delays absent
additional support.

•

May Require Exceptions Process: Unanticipated emergencies, grant matching, or
regulatory changes could necessitate more flexible transfer increases, requiring
additional administrative review or Board action.

Option 4 – Employee Health Insurance Contribution Adjustment
Description:
Increase employee health insurance premium share from current 10% (90/10 split) to either
15% (85/15) or 20% (80/20), effective FY 2027. For represented employees, this adjustment
would need to be negotiated with our bargaining units.
Context:
Premium costs are increasing, with County contributions set to rise sharply in coming years. This
option is a structural control on rising personnel costs.
Potential Impact:
•

•

20% employee share (80/20 split):
o

Employee monthly premium, single coverage: $251 → $502 (FY 2027)

o

County contribution reduction: $5.3M → $4.7M (savings ≈ $600k in FY 2027)

o

Four-year County savings: $2.8M (FY27–FY30)

15% employee share (85/15 split):
o

Employee monthly premium, single coverage: $251 → $377 (FY 2027)

o

County contribution reduction: $5.3M → $5.015M (savings ≈ $285k in FY 2027)

o

Four-year County savings: ~$1.39M

General Fund would realize a proportional share of savings, depending on its share of premiumpaid payroll.

[Intentionally Blank]

Page 5 of 8

Pros:
•

Structural, Recurring Cost Reduction: Increases in employee contributions can reduce
County health insurance expenses by approximately $285,000–$600,000 per year
(depending on the split), with the General Fund realizing a proportional share of savings.
These savings scale with healthcare inflation over time.

•

Enhances Long-Term Financial Stability: Addresses one of the largest and fastestgrowing cost drivers in the County budget, supporting structural balance and creating
fiscal flexibility as major revenue changes approach (post-2030).

•

Industry Alignment: Brings County cost-sharing closer to Oregon local government
norms, many of which have moved to 85/15, 80/20, or dollar cap models.

•

GFOA-aligned Best Practice: Prioritizes recurring expenditure recalibration over onetime fixes, improving fund sustainability and credibility with oversight bodies.

•

Reserves/Service Buffering: The resources preserved can be redirected to core
mandates, contingency reserves, or mitigating service disruptions in volatile years.

Page 6 of 8

Cons:
•

Compensation Impact: Raises out-of-pocket costs for staff, reducing take-home pay, and
potentially increasing turnover risk, wage pressure, and recruiting challenges.

•

Workforce Morale: Perceived reduction in benefits may affect morale, engagement, and
organizational climate, particularly if not offset by other compensation or support
measures.

•

Competitive Disadvantage: Increasing employee premium shares may put Crook County
at a recruiting or retention disadvantage compared to nearby cities, counties, or districts
that offer more affordable employee health coverage.

Option 5 – Revenue Risk Management and Reserve Policy Formalization
Description:
Gradually reduce the general fund contingency reserve from five months (41.7%) to two months
(16.7%) of annual operating expenditures over a two- or three-year period, beginning no sooner
than FY28. The difference—approximately $4.52 million—would be reallocated from reserves to
support general fund operations while ensuring the County continues to budget in alignment
with GFOA guidance.
Relevant Context
•

Current Policy: Crook County maintains a five-month general fund contingency (~$7
million for FY26), reflecting a conservative posture post-COVID.

•

GFOA Guidance: The Government Finance Officers Association recommends a minimum
of two months of expenditures (about $3.01 million for Crook County) as a standard,
with upward adjustment only for local risk factors. GFOA encourages periodic review and
formal risk assessments to align reserves with actual fiscal risk.

•

County Objective: As confidence in post-pandemic revenue and cash flow patterns
returns, right-sizing the reserve releases resources to bolster operations or stabilize
services during the next five-year period while keeping the County in compliance with
good fiscal practice.

Potential Impact
•

Lowering the reserve policy from five to two months will extend the period before the
County falls out of fiscal compliance with its own fund balance policy—but does not

Page 7 of 8

•

prevent reserve depletion if operational spending continues to exceed recurring
revenues.
Creates opportunity to put existing resources into operations without falling out of fiscal
compliance.

Pros
•

Alignment with Standards: Brings the reserve into compliance with GFOA’s risk-based
best practices.

•

Transparent, Phased Approach: Minimizes fiscal shock and ensures risk is managed as
confidence in cash flow and property tax revenue is restored.

Cons
•

Reduced Risk Buffer: Lower reserves reduce capacity to absorb fiscal shocks or revenue
disruptions (e.g., further tax appeals, major emergencies).

•

Public Perception: Risk of negative perceptions or criticism that the county is “spending
down savings,” requiring clear communication of rationale and risk management.

•

Potential for Future Adjustments: If volatility resumes or new risks materialize, may
need to revisit and increase reserves, potentially requiring difficult fiscal adjustments.

Feedback Sought
The options above are for discussion and feedback. Please provide input on consideration,
modifications, or other impacts for possible inclusion in the FY 2027 budget planning process.

Page 8 of 8

MEMORANDUM
To:
Crook County Budget Committee
From: Will VanVactor, County Manager
Date: October 23, 2025
RE:
Funding Options and Cost Control Strategies – Crook County Sheriff’s Office
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Budget Committee with a structured overview of
potential funding options and cost control strategies to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of
the Crook County Sheriff’s Office. In view of persistent service demands, rising operational costs, and
constrained revenue growth, it is essential to evaluate a variety of approaches, including new revenue
sources and internal efficiency measures. This memo summarizes key options for committee
consideration, outlining each option’s intent, anticipated impact, and relevant pros and cons to support
an informed decision-making process for the upcoming budget cycle.
Preliminary Option – What can we Fund with Current Resources? (for context)
Description
This option limits the Sheriff’s Office to the number of personnel it can sustain within available FY 27
budget resources, after accounting for anticipated increases in average personnel costs due to recent
collective bargaining agreements (Deputy and Sergeant contracts effective July 2025). See attached
Memorandum re Successful Contract Negotiations.
Key Assumptions and Calculation
•

The total personnel funding available in FY 27 is $8.3 million, based on currently projected
resources, 10% M&S and 20% capital outlay reductions, and 25% ending fund balance).

•

Recent contracts (CBAs) result in higher wage/benefit costs per FTE—conservatively, staff-wide
average annual personnel cost is expected to increase by 10–12% relative to FY 26. This increase
has been incorporated into this analysis.

•

FTE affordable at $8.3M for personnel:
$8.3M / $185,383 ≈ 44.8 FTE

Pros
•

Keeps spending strictly within available and sustainable resources for FY27.

•

Maintains a reasonable fund balance.

•

Ensures compliance with labor contracts regarding wage and benefit rates.

Page 1 of 12

Cons
•

Reduced staffing levels: About 27% fewer personnel than prior budget authority, given higher
cost per FTE.

•

Downward pressure on service delivery, increased overtime, and likely negative effects on
workforce morale.

•

Misalignment with community expectations as workload and service needs remain steady or
grow.

•

Not a long-term fix: Persistent increases in average personnel costs, especially under new CBAs,
will further erode the number of FTEs sustainable in future years if no new revenue sources are
added.

The following options are included for discussion and feedback. This “Preliminary Option” is presented
for context. Given the impact on service level and public expectations, this approach is not
recommended at this time.
Option 1 – Operating Levy
Description:
A jail operating levy is a voter-approved, time-limited property tax levy dedicated specifically to jail
operations, including staffing, facility maintenance, and inmate programs. This approach is distinct from
a general law enforcement operating levy, which provides funds for a broader range of Sheriff’s Office
functions such as patrol, investigations, and court security. While the jail operating levy targets the
most acute needs identified in recent budges, greater flexibility could be achieved through a more
general law enforcement operating levy—should that better align with overall public safety strategy.
Tax Rate Options:
Levy rates are typically expressed per $1,000 of assessed value and must be set at the time of the ballot
referral. Crook County’s permanent rate is approximately $3.8702 per $1,000 of assessed value;
however, additional voter-approved levies for operations can be set for up to five years and are subject
to compression if total rates exceed the statutory caps for general government ($10 per $1,000 of real
market value).
Here is a further breakdown:
Based on the adopted budgets and finance department data, Crook County’s assessed value for FY
2025–2026 is projected to be approximately $3.4 billion (based on current property tax collections and
rates). The typical collection rate is assumed at 94%.
Revenue Examples by Levy Rate:
•

Every $0.10 per $1,000 of assessed value generates approximately $340,000/year (rounded).
Page 2 of 12

•

Every $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed value generates approximately $1.7 million/year.

•

Every $1.00 per $1,000 of assessed value generates approximately $3.4 million/year.

Example Scenario:
If a jail operating levy of $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed value was approved:
•

Gross revenue: $1,700,000/year

•

Net of 94% collection: $1,598,000/year

A $0.75 levy would generate an estimated $2.55 million/year (gross), and a $1.00 levy would generate
$3.4 million/year (gross
Pros:
•

Dedicated, predictable revenue for jail operations, supporting restoration of cut positions,
improved coverage, and critical capital needs.

•

Relieves pressure on the general fund and allows for transparent connection between funding
and specific service levels.

•

Option to structure levy with sunset/review period for enhanced public accountability.

•

Can address known service gaps, such as inmate programming, staffing, and Justice Center
security.

•

As future revenue forecasts become clearer, it may be determined that a second levy is not
necessary, alleviating future tax burden on property owners.

Cons:
•

Requires voter approval—success depends on community support and effective public
outreach.

•

Adds to overall property tax burden; risk of “compression” limits actual collections if statutory
caps are exceeded. This is not currently a significant risk in Crook County.

•

If narrowly structured, levy funds cannot be redirected to other urgent Sheriff’s Office needs
(e.g., patrol or emergency response).

•

If not renewed after the initial period, it creates long-term sustainability risk for staffing and
operations funded by the levy.

•

Should only be pursued if necessary to preserve or increase service levels.

Implementation Consideration:
If there is interest in pursuing a jail operating levy, it is recommended that the county conduct targeted
Page 3 of 12

public outreach and stakeholder engagement before referring a levy to the voters. This will help test
community support, clarify priorities, and inform the scope and rate of the levy proposal.

Option 2 -Public Safety Fee
Description:
A public safety fee could be established to offset the increased service demand placed on the Sheriff’s
Office by new development in Crook County. The fee would be assessed on new construction and
collected through the Community Development Department, using a structure similar to the current
code enforcement fee model. Revenue from the fee would be dedicated to supporting law
enforcement staffing and operations impacted by county growth.
Potential Revenue:
Based on permit data for new single-family dwellings:
•

2024: 157 permits

•

2023: 176 permits

•

2022: 243 permits

•

2021: 287 permits

•

Average (4 years): 216 permits/year

If a public safety fee of $1,000 per new dwelling were implemented:
•

216 permits/year × $1,000 = $216,000 per year

•

This amount is close to the cost of one FTE (deputy) including salary and benefits in the Sheriff’s
Office.

Precedent and Legal Note:
•

While Oregon law broadly authorizes certain regulatory fees for direct service costs, dedicated
“public safety impact fees” related to law enforcement are less common than System
Development Charges (SDCs) for infrastructure (ORS 223.297–223.314).

•

Some Oregon jurisdictions levy fees similar to this for code enforcement, and individual cities
(e.g., Gresham, Medford) have experimented with public safety fees for police or fire services—
but most of those are structured as monthly utility-style charges, not as a fee on development.

•

Any such fee should be carefully structured to withstand legal scrutiny; statutes require a
demonstrated nexus between the fee and service impact. Coordination with county legal
counsel and Community Development is advised before pursuing implementation.
Page 4 of 12

•

Without clear precedent, if there is interest in pursuing, further due diligence regarding the
legality of such a fee would need to be conducted.

Pros:
•

Provides a direct mechanism for growth to help pay for increased public safety costs (growthpays-for-growth principle).

•

Predictable, base-level revenue generation not subject to voter approval.

•

Straightforward administrative mechanism if modeled after existing fee collection processes
(such as code enforcement).

Cons:
•

Adds a new cost to development, which may discourage building or create affordability
concerns. The Building Department and Planning Fee have recently added new fees.

•

Overall revenue is modest compared to the total cost of Sheriff’s Office operations—will not
resolve larger structural budget gaps.

•

May face resistance from builders, realtors, or other stakeholders opposed to additional
development fees.

Implementation Consideration:
If pursued, the fee should be clearly defined in ordinance, with legal review ensuring statutory
compliance and a direct connection to law enforcement service impacts caused by new development.
Public input should be received before implementing any such fee.
Option 3 – Materials and Services/Capital Outlay Reductions
Description:
Reducing the Sheriff’s Office budget for Materials & Services and capital outlay is one commonly
considered path to control costs and redirect resources to personnel. However, a significant share of
the M&S budget consists of internal service fees set and allocated by other county departments—such
as Facilities, IT, Admin, and Finance. These costs are not directly controllable by the Sheriff’s Office or
easily reduced without a countywide strategy.
Key Facts & Budget Impact:
•

In FY 2027, the Sheriff’s Office baseline assumption for M&S is $5,003,000 and capital outlay is
$267,000. Reducing M&S by 5% and capital outlay by 10% would increase available personnel
funding by $277,000.

•

However, a considerable portion of this M&S line item is attributed to internal service fees
determined by countywide administrative policies. These internal fees, for Facilities, IT, and
Page 5 of 12

other shared services, routinely increase to reflect higher operating and maintenance costs and
expanded county infrastructure (e.g., Justice Center).
•

The Sheriff’s Office is limited in its ability to achieve substantial M&S reductions without the
active participation of the Board and county administration to review, verify, and, if appropriate,
recalibrate internal service charges for fairness and accuracy.

Sheriff’s Office Fleet Management Plan
To help strengthen near-term cost control and reliability for capital outlay, it is recommended that the
Sheriff’s Office immediately develop and adopt a department-specific Fleet Management Plan. This will
help ensure capital outlay accurately reflects anticipated vehicle purchases.
A fleet management plan will:
•

Allow the Sheriff’s Office to systematically schedule vehicle replacements and maintenance,
reducing disruptive, unplanned capital outlay.

•

Promote more predictable budgeting by anticipating needs and leveraging data on vehicle age,
usage, and condition.

•

Support operational readiness by minimizing downtime and ensuring vehicles remain missioncapable.

•

Foster discipline and transparency in capital planning, providing data for future countywide fleet
discussions.

Pros:
•

Facilitates immediate, although typically incremental, General Fund relief.

•

Can help bridge temporary fiscal gaps or defer more difficult personnel reductions.

•

Demonstrates a commitment to cost control and operational efficiency.

Cons:
•

Internal service costs are largely non-discretionary—true savings potential is much lower than
top-line M&S figures suggest.

•

Repeated or large reductions risk deferred equipment replacement, facility maintenance, or
other impacts to operational readiness.

•

Sustainability is limited; this approach primarily offers short-term relief, not structural budget
balance.

Page 6 of 12

Implementation Notes:
•

County should commit to a full review of internal service fee methodologies to ensure charges
are equitably allocated and justified, particularly as new facilities come online and service needs
evolve.
•

•

NOTE: The hiring pause and materials and services cap discussed in General Fund
memorandum will help control internal service fee growth.

For Sheriff’s Office, reductions should target non-mandatory, discretionary external contracts
and supplies first, while assessing a countywide approach to internal service cost containment.

Option 4 – Create Internal Service Fee to Support Emergency Management
Description:
This option involves shifting the funding for Emergency Management from standalone departmental or
general fund support to an internal service fee (ISF) model. Under this approach, the costs of
Emergency Management—including personnel, planning, training, and operational expenditures—
would be distributed to all benefiting county departments using an allocation formula, similar to how
Crook County currently recovers costs for Facilities, IT, GIS, and Finance support. Although some state
and federal funding is expected to continue, the starting assumption here is that the internal service
fee structure would need to cover all Emergency Management expenditures. Emergency Management
is a mandated service.
Budget and Cost Basis:
•

Current Emergency Management funding includes a mixture of General Fund, grant, and in-kind
support. The ISF model would assign 100% of net costs (after state/federal aid) to internal
customer departments.

•

Future budgets would require annual review to ensure grant offsets and fee calculations are
transparent and equitable.

Precedent and Internal Practices:
•

Crook County already uses internal service fee models for Facilities, IT, GIS, Finance, and even
absorbs code enforcement costs via fee-for-service to relevant departments.

•

For all departments, Emergency Management:
o Ensures emergency planning occurs and continuity of operations support
o Supports or leads response for emergency affecting many county departments,
including Roads, Public Health, and law enforcement.
o Ensures departments can qualify or grants and state programs that require
preparedness for or mitigation from emergencies. This is a common requirement.
Page 7 of 12

Emergency Management leads these efforts, ensuring all departments can qualify for
these grants and programs.
Pros:
•

Provides stable, predictable funding for Emergency Management without competition for
discretionary General Fund resources.

•

Charges are equitably allocated in proportion to the benefit or services each user department
receives.

•

Increases transparency in the true cost of service delivery and incentivizes internal efficiencies.

•

County departments are more directly invested in the planning and readiness process.

Cons:
•

Increases operating costs for all county user departments, which must absorb these fees into
their own budgets.

•

If grant funding drops or state support is less than anticipated, fee increases may be required
year to year.

•

Requires robust fee allocation methodology and annual transparency in budgeting.

•

Pushback possible from departments with limited direct emergency management involvement.

Implementation Considerations:
•

Ensure grant offsets or direct state aid are factored into ISF calculations so departments are not
overcharged.

•

Develop and review allocation methods (e.g., by FTE, risk, facility footprint, or service
utilization) for fairness.

•

Formalize internal service agreements and communicate any major increases in departmental
costs in advance.

•

Monitor compliance with state requirements for minimum Emergency Management capabilities
and grant eligibility.

Option 5 – Increase Property Tax Allocation
Description
This option increases the Sheriff’s Office share of Crook County property tax revenue by 1% for FY
2026, reallocating from other tax-supported funds (General Fund, Library Fund, Museum Fund).
History of Allocation
Page 8 of 12

•
•

Prior to FY 2024: Sheriff’s Office received 63.6%; General Fund, Library, Museum made up the
remainder.
FY 2024 Onward: Allocation adjusted to 57.7% for the Sheriff’s Office, 26.9% General Fund,
13.8% Library, 1.6% Museum, to better align with sustainability and service delivery needs.

What a 1% Increase Would Mean
•

Total FY 2026 Property Tax Revenue: ~$12,900,000

•

Each 1% Increase:
o

Worth $129,000 in new revenue to the Sheriff’s Office.

o

Decreases General Fund by a combined $129,000, likely reducing revenue from the
General Fund for the Library and Museum.

Pros
•

Provides immediate, recurring funding increase for the Sheriff’s Office without reliance on voter
approval.

•

Increases flexibility within the SO budget to address cost pressures (staffing, operations, etc.).

•

Straightforward administrative change; does not require external process or ballot measure.

Cons
•

Corresponding reduction to General Fund, Library, and/or Museum, potentially impacting their
service levels.

•

Does not increase the overall property tax pool—shifts financial pressure among funds.

•

May erode funding for non-Sheriff’s Office services, creating trade-offs.

•

Not a “new” revenue solution; only redistributes within existing constraints.

Implementation Considerations
If desire to consider adjusting allocations, we need to ensure that all affected departments are advised
of potential impacts and incorporate reductions thoughtfully to minimize service disruptions. Evaluate
alongside other options for structural sustainability.

Page 9 of 12

Option 6 – Property Tax Revenue Assumptions
Description
The adopted FY2026 budget projects property tax revenue growth at 4% for FY2027 and 3% per year
starting FY2028 onward in alignment with long-term statutory and market expectations. This “stepdown” approach is designed to balance recent above-average tax base expansions with prudent longterm planning. For context, we also present a scenario consistent with recent trends and external
(Divergent) analysis, modeling growth at 5% annually.
Calculation/Analysis
Fiscal
Year

County Property
Tax (Budget)

SO @ 57.7% SO @ 59.2%

County
Property Tax
(Trend 5%)

SO @ 57.7% SO @
59.2%

2026

$12,900,000

$7,449,300

$7,636,800

$12,900,000

$7,449,300

$7,636,800

2027

$13,416,000 (+4%)

$7,742,043

$7,950,272

$13,545,000

$7,813,665

$8,017,440

2028

$13,818,480 (+3%)

$7,978,070

$8,183,543

$14,222,250

$8,210,151

$8,418,312

2029

$14,233,034 (+3%)

$8,215,472

$8,418,078

$14,933,362

$8,624,537

$8,839,431

2030

$14,660,025 (+3%)

$8,454,095

$8,653,971

$15,679,030

$9,057,794

$9,281,865

Pros (Adopted Approach):
•

Prudent, statutorily aligned with Measure 50 (3% limit for existing property).

•

Reduces risk of overestimating ongoing revenues as new construction moderates.

•

Promotes long-term fiscal stability.

Cons (Adopted Approach):
•

May understate revenues if current building and valuation growth persist, resulting in
misleading forecasts.

•

Could result in “budgetary windfalls” if actuals are consistently higher

Pros (5% Scenario – Context Only):
•

Illustrates added flexibility if recent historic revenue growth continues

•

Supports “what if” discussion for longer-term planning

Page 10 of 12

Cons (5% Scenario):
•

Less conservative; significant risk if growth reverts to norm due to market or legal changes

•

Not recommended as a basis for ongoing expenses or staffing expansions

Implementation & Committee Consideration
•

Continue to use the budgeted assumption (4% for FY2027, 3% onward) for core planning and
forecasting.

•

The 5% trend scenario is provided for situational awareness only and reinforces the rationale for
Crook County’s conservative approach.

•

Actual growth should be re-evaluated annually. If trends persist, the committee could revisit
future assumptions case-by-case, but a cautious approach helps preserve service levels across
cycles.

Option 7 – Reserve Stabilization Policy
Description:
Dedicate 25% of annual county real property sale proceeds to the Sheriff’s Office Reserve Fund until the
reserve complies with fiscal policy targets. Once those targets are met, redirect the 25% (for example)
share to pay down the Sheriff’s Office PERS unfunded liability. After PERS liability is fully funded, use the
25% allocation for repayment of the FY 25 capital reserve loan to the Sheriff’s Office. Once these
priorities have been fulfilled, all of the 25% share is directed to the county capital reserve fund. The
remaining 75% of sale proceeds are allocated to the county capital reserve fund at all times. Policy to
be reassessed annually. In FY 26, initiate a comprehensive review to identify and prepare surplus
county real property for disposition.
Analysis/Calculation
Assuming $700,000 average annual property sale proceeds:
Sheriff’s Office Reserve Fund:
25% × $700,000 = $175,000/year (until reserve fund is fully funded per policy)
County Capital Reserve Fund:
75% × $700,000 = $525,000/year (at all times)
Pros:
•

Dedicates a policy-driven revenue stream to essential Sheriff’s Office fiscal priorities.

•

Supports achievement and maintenance of prudent reserve levels.

Page 11 of 12

•

Proactively addresses PERS unfunded actuarial liability.

•

Enables repayment of inter-fund capital loan, improving overall fund accountability.

•

Builds reserves for future operational and capital needs.

•

Uses non-tax revenue; does not increase tax rates.

•

Annual reassessment and sunset date provide ongoing oversight and adaptability.

Cons:
•

Relies on a finite and potentially uncertain revenue source (property sales).

•

Limited inventory of saleable county properties could constrain available proceeds.

•

May reduce flexibility for funding other urgent countywide capital or operational needs.

•

Could impact other long-term facility strategies if not managed in alignment with broader
county goals.

Implementation Consideration:
Will require staff to initiate surplus property review and disposition planning in the second half of FY
26. Will require a policy adoption.

Page 12 of 12

MEMORANDUM
To:
Will Van Vactor, County Manager
From: Christina Haron, Finance Director
Date: October 23, 2025
RE:
Budget Implications of Successful Negotiations for Sheriff’s Office Unions

Overview
Crook County successfully negotiated both the Crook County Sheriff Deputy Association and the
Crook County Sheriff Sergeant Association, with compensation changes under Article 7 in each
contract, effective for both unions as of 7/16/2025. The estimated budgetary impact of each
association’s collective bargaining agreement for FY26 and FY27 is as follows:
The estimated cost of the changes under the agreement for the staff in the Deputy association,
compared to the adopted budget, is an increase of approximately $325,000 in FY26. The
projected total personnel cost for FY27 is $6.22M for 41.0 FTE, a 10% increase over the FY26
adopted budget.
The estimated cost of the changes under the agreement for the staff in the Sergeant
association, compared to the adopted budget, is an increase of approximately $140,000 in FY26.
The projected total personnel cost for FY27 is $1.53M for 7.0 FTE, an 18% increase over the
FY26 adopted budget.
Note: These estimates also consider the health insurance rate increase coming in lower than
originally budgeted.
Additional information regarding the specifics of the changes to compensation made under
those agreements is available if desired.

Crook County Budget Committee Meeting
Date: October 23, 2025
Location: Justice Center Conference (and Zoom)
Topic: Core Services and Fiscal Sustainability

Meeting Agenda
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Call to Order & Public Comment
Approval of May 12th Minutes
Review of Core Services Project
Economic Impact
Review Forecast Analysis
Funding Options: General Fund
Funding Options: Sheriff’s Office
Committee Discussion & Next Steps

Core Services Overview
• Define core county services
• Align with resident expectations
• Review process ongoing
• Ensure informed decision making for future
resource allocation

Core Services Review Status
• Departments submitted draft descriptions
• Board review ongoing
• Health, Library, Health complete
• Goal: Annual review to ensure resources are allocated to
core services

Economic Conditions Shaping County Budgets
• Slowing property tax growth
• Inflation pressures spending
• Personnel costs rising
• Grant funding uncertain
• Growth is a threat

Expenditure Forecast
• Personnel is top cost driver
• Overtime and benefits rising
• Deferred capital needs grow
• Supplies, contracts increasing

General Fund Stability and Risks
•

•

•

•

•

Stable through FY 2027
One-time revenues tapering off
Cost growth outpaces revenue
Reserve pressures post-2027
Requires proactive adjustments

Sheriff’s Office Forecast
• Based on FY26 adopted budget
• Projected 96% expenditure use
• 57.7% of property taxes allocated
• Reduced staffing, flat FTE

Sheriff’s Office Forecast
• Major FY26 revenue: $7.2M property tax
• $1M General Fund transfer
• Total resources: $19.3M
• Reliance on one-time revenues

Sheriff’s Office Forecast
• FY26 $4.08M contingency kept
• Balance projected below policy by FY28
• Reduced service/staffing levels held
• 30–35% more revenue needed to stay
within policy

Consultant Review
• Agaps persist
• Data center taxes begin ramp 2030
• Surpluses possible 2032–35, not certain
• Early years: high volatility, risk

Future Revenue Growth Potential
•

•

•

•

•

Exemptions phase out post-2028
Revenue growth in mid-2030s
Early volatility anticipated
Supports long-term stability
Bridge-year management vital

FY 2027 Stabilization Overview
•

•

•

•

•

County entering FY27 strong
Prudent reserves, steady services
Rising costs pressure budgets
Slower revenue growth expected
Proactive measures under review

Option 1 – Hiring Pause with Exceptions
•

•

•

•

•

Temporary pause on new hires
Exceptions for essential roles
Savings ≈ $250K in FY27 (estimate)
Avoids layoffs, controls growth
May increase workloads

Option 2 – Cost Controls and Transfers
•

•

•

•

•

Cap M&S growth at 2%
Based on current M&S forecasts, saves ~$75K annually
Slows baseline expenditure growth
Limit fund transfers to FY26 levels
Promotes fiscal predictability
Scenario

Avg. Annual $ Increase

Avg. Annual % Increase

Actual Forecast

~$181,600

~3.5%

2% Cap Scenario

~$106,700

2.0%

Avg. Annual Savings

~75,000

Option 3 – Employee Health Contribution
•

•

•

•

•

Current split 90/10 CountyEmployee
Shift to 85/15 or 80/20
Saves $285K–$600K yearly
Structural, recurring savings
Requires labor negotiation

Option 4 – Reserve Policy Adjustment
•

•

•

•

•

Current reserve: five months ops
GFOA minimum: two months
Gradual alignment FY28–FY30
Reallocate ≈ $4.5M strategically towards end of decade
Maintain fiscal compliance

FY 2027 Stabilization Discussion
•

•

•

Combine short- and long-term tools
Maintain flexibility, avoid layoffs
Prioritize structural cost control

SO Funding Options & Cost Controls
•

•

•

Rising costs outpacing revenue
Persistent service demand growth
CBAs raise wage/benefit costs

Context – What FY27 Can Fund
•

•

•

•

$8.3M available for personnel
≈45 FTE sustainable
27% fewer than prior authority
Still not sustainable long term

Option 1 – Jail or Law Enforcement Levy
•

•

•

•

•

Voter-approved, 5-year levy
Dedicated to jail operations
$0.10 = ~$340K / year
$0.50 = ~$1.7M / year
Requires public engagement

Option 2 – Public Safety Fee on Development
•

•

•

•

•

Fee on new construction permits
Modeled after code enforcement fees
$1,000 / dwelling = ~$216K / year (hypothetical fee
structure)
Growth-pays-for-growth principle
Requires legal review, no precedent in Oregon

Option 3 – Cost Containment Measures
•

•

•

•

•

Reduce M&S by 5%, capital 10%
Frees ~$277K for personnel
Internal service fees limit control
Countywide strategy required
Develop Fleet Management Plan to minimize capital
outlay requirements

Option 4 – Internal Service Fee Model
•

•

•

•

•

Shift EM to internal service fee
Equitable cost allocation
Predictable, stable funding
Grants offset total charges
Transparency across departments

Option 5 – Reallocate Property Tax Shares
•

•

•

•

•

•

Current allocation is 57.7%
+1% to Sheriff’s Fund = +$129K
Offsets from other funds
Immediate, recurring revenue
No voter approval needed
Creates trade-offs elsewhere

Option 6 – Property Tax Growth Rates
•

•

•

•

•

Budget assumes 4% FY27, then 3%
Trend scenario shows 5% growth
4% = conservative, stable approach
5% = higher risk, higher reward
Info provide for context

Option 7 – Reserve Stablization Policy
•

•

•

•

•

Dedicate 25% of sales to SO Reserve
~$175K/year at $700K total sales
Supports reserves, PERS, loan payoff
Policy-driven, non-tax source
Requires surplus property review

SO Funding & Cost Strategy Summary
•

•

•

•

•

Combine revenue and efficiency tools
Preserve service, stabilize operations
Prioritize sustainable, recurring funding
Align policy with fiscal best practices
Committee feedback requested

Commitment to Accountability
•

•

•

•

•

Clear reporting on fund trends
Public access to fiscal data
Open communication on priorities
Core Services improve clarity
Transparency builds trust

Committee Direction & Next Steps
•

•

•

•

•

Confirm funding priorities
Review forecast assumptions
Discuss Sheriff’s Fund strategies
Refine Core Services work
Schedule winter follow-up

PUBLIC NOTICE OF
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
The Budget Committee of Crook County, State of Oregon, will hold a public meeting on
Thursday, October 23, 2025, beginning at 12:30 p.m., at the Crook County Justice
Center Room 120, located at 260 NW 2nd Street, Prineville, Oregon, 97754. The
principal subject(s) anticipated to be discussed are: options and recommendations for
ensuring continued sustainable long-term funding of the Sheriff’s Office. The purpose
of the October 23rd meeting is to provide the budget committee with information
regarding funding of the Sheriff’s Office. This is a public meeting where deliberations of
the Budget Committee will take place. Members of the public and media are welcome to
attend in person or via Zoom: 1- 253-215-8782; Meeting ID: 947 6798 4848; Meeting
Passcode: 971566. Notice of publication is available at co.crook.or.us/news.

CROOK COUNTY
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
Agenda
Thursday, October 23, 2025, at 12:30 pm

Crook County Justice Center, Room 120 l 260 NW 2nd Street l Prineville, OR
Members of the public and media are welcome to attend in person or via Zoom:
Phone: 1-253-215-8782; Meeting ID: 947 6798 4848; Meeting Passcode: 971566

12:30 pm

Call to Order

12:35 pm

PUBLIC COMMENT

1:05 pm

Review Minutes of May 12, 2025, for Approval

1:10 pm

Presentation of Sustainable Long-Term funding Options for the Sheriff’s Office
Budget Officer

3:10 pm

Break

3:20 pm

PUBLIC COMMENT

3:35 pm

Budget Committee Discussion

Budget Committee Chair

4:30 pm

Meeting Adjourned

Budget Committee Chair

Budget Committee Chair

Budget Committee