Gresham mayor proposes fee to keep up services
»Play Video
GRESHAM, Ore. – The mayor of Gresham said the city is a “different place” than when he grew up there and is calling for a fee on utilities to better fund existing emergency services.
In a letter sent to Gresham residents, which included a KATU News producer, Mayor Shane Bemis said the proposed fee, which would cost each business and household – including renters - $7.50 per month, would only be used to help pay for current emergency services and parks.
Bemis said the fee would ensure that when people call 9-1-1, police and fire crews can respond quickly.
“We are facing a chasm between the resources we have and the basic services that our households require, like police, emergency medical response, fire protection and parks,” Bemis wrote.
Without the added funding, Bemis claims services could be brought down to "unacceptable and unsafe levels." Over 90 percent of the revenue would go to police and fire services, with the rest targeted at parks, Bemis said. The fees would go into the city’s general fund.
- Read the entire letter from Mayor Bemis (PDF)
Bemis said that Gresham residents pay the least of Oregon’s 10 largest cities for emergency services, and even if the new fee is approved, they would still be paying the least.
Gresham is now the fourth-largest city in Oregon behind Portland, Salem and Eugene, with a population of 106,000 or more. Bemis said there were 55,000 residents when he moved to Gresham at age 15.
Bemis said in his letter that he never saw gang members while he was growing up and attending Gresham High School. But now, he said police say there are members of 135 known gangs in the city.
“To put it simply, along with our big-city stature comes a host of big-city challenges, and I believe Gresham has reached a defining moment” he said in the letter.
Bemis also said the city has saved money since 2008 by cutting 70 full-time positions.
Right now, a fixed property tax funds parks, police and fire, and that property tax rate was capped by the state in the 1990s before Gresham's population ballooned. The city has lobbied for changes in state property tax laws to allow the city to bring in more property tax revenue.
Many residents said they're not excited about a bigger bill from the city.
"The economy is bad right now as it is," said Marrita Trujillo. "That's just going to make it even harder for those of us who just get by on paying on bills."
But others said they supported such a fee.
"I didn't think it was such a bad idea. I don't think 7.50 is that much," said Patricia Murphy. "You think about people – they buy all sorts of things through the month. It doesn't seem like that much."
She said it's worth it if it keeps her home safe.
The public is invited to comment on the proposal beginning Wednesday at 6 p.m. at Gresham’s City Hall, located at 1333 NW Eastman Parkway.
The City Council hasn't set a date for a vote on the issue. It is going to wait until after the town hall meetings to set a vote sometime later this year.
KATU News reporter Emily Sinovic contributed to this report.
maybe cut wastefull spending first, especially all that is going on in old town right near his own restraunt
death from a thousand cuts.. Just a little more, just a few cents, just a couple quarters per person.. NO MORE
To all those people crying about paying more taxes, and not wanting to keeping up with basic inflation and cost for services in a growing city. I say to you patrol your own streets at your own cost and time. Put out your own damn fires. Keep all Gresham's parks clean, mowed and pruned. For $7.50  I bet you, You can't. And if you still don't wanna pay move to Boring.
Another Fee, Another Tax? I bet it would be used for only what they say it is for. Like we have never heard of a Mayor redirecting sewer/watere funds for other then what they where raised for.
Don't do it. It's a trap. Let government live within their means and cut the pay of all government employees.
 @RalphCramden Cut the pay to the city workers?? Seems like a good idea at first, but what about all the city employees that make very little money to begin with. Would you want your pay cut in half to suport whoever you work for ??  IF people want the services they need to pay for them. On the other hand we do need city officials that do what they are elected to do and not waste tax dollars.
 @onceagainÂ
Â
Give them an option. A cut in pay or unemployment.
Â
Which one do you think they would pick?
 @onceagain  @RalphCramden Have the cut off at 55k a year. No need to pay more than that.
 @onceagain  @iamright555 Â
Â
Yup.
 @iamright555  @RalphCramden So you would be happy making only 55k a year and be a lawyer or accountant for the city or anyone else who has spent years in college earning a Masters or even a PHD degree ??
135 gangs in Gresham, it makes me so mad I could scream. Just think of the money they cost all of us with crime and use of public resources.
Mayor Bemis like most government officials seem to think the majority of taxpayers have no memory nor do they do any thinking. If Mayor Bemis is elected again after imposing this fee we have to assume he's correct. Here's some facts he doesn't like people to think about using my own house as an example but it would be true for every house in Gresham. Since 1997 taxes on my house have gone up 51%, my income has not, but the income for the city has grown even more than 3% because of new construction that has occurred since 1997 increasing the size of the tax base. This would completely negate his complaint that in the 90s a limit was put on tax increases for the city. It's true there is a limit how much a given property can go up in taxes per year but that limit is 3% every year from the year before. This is an automatic increase they don't ask for they just take and don't remind you of. This tax increase is based on assessed value which is less than market value which has dropped considerably in the last few years as we all know. The end result of it is the city has had a consistent increase in revenue at least by 3% not counting new construction which from a tax point of view has completely sheltered the city from the economic turn down at the expense of the taxpayers who are affected by the economic turn down. Why should we taxpayers be okay with the idea that the city wants to take more money then they will automatically get with the 3% increase when the majority of us are increasingly struggling just to hold on what we have and having to do so with our reduction of income. Why is it that government feels they should not only be held exams from an economic turn down but able to increase their expenditures out of our increasingly shrinking pocket? In the news article there is a hint at an explanation for the need to increase police presence, it is as a result of increased gang activity. Without any expense to the city I can give you a way to solve that problem. Reduce the amount/or eliminate low income housing in the city and discontinued the use of light rail. With those two simple steps we could probably do with less police, property values would go up, more people would want to live in Gresham and that would increase the tax base so that 3% increase annually would become a windfall. I find it particularly disgusting that during this economic time the city would ask or in this case force an increase in cost on the residents of Gresham. I also find it disgusting that it is being put forth as a small amount when it adds up to $90 a year over and above automatic increases that are not mentioned. My taxes assessed value will increase a little over $5700 this year even though the value of my home has dropped which has left me upside down in the loan to value equation so I can't even sell and escape the greedy Gresham city Council. I urge each citizen to be aware of the mayor and the council members who voted in favor of this increase in fee and vote your disdain each time these officials come up for election.Â
Police, firemen and roads should be the first things paid, not the last. But politicians spend all the money for their special friends knowing the taxpayers will fork over additional money for the essentials. If they used the first money for policemen, firemen and roads and asked for special taxes for their special crap they'd never get it. Vote "no" for every encumbent.
 @hankhandsome they like to defer the funds using urban renewal programs. When they are supposed to pay back the taxes when the renewal works.. they accidentally use the money somewhere else.
Its not about it only being $7.50, its about the idea its never enough money for our government to operate. Isn't nice how they disguised the TAX as a fee? If these services are in dire need of cash why would the ear mark a percentage to go to parks? Why not all the money go to emergency services? ....its never enough.
Does Bemis raise the prices in his restaurant without first looking at where he could cut costs? If you look at cities in Oregon most are getting eaten alive by "public safety" (police and fire). While it is sacrilege to challenge the police and fire people their wages and benefits are simply out of control. The vast majority of a city's property tax revenue is spent on these two top heavy services. At some point cities are going to have to rein in spending.
How much, again, did this wonderful sculpture at the entrance to the city cost?
I know we all hate increases or anything that resembles a tax. However.. I live in Gresham proper and have zero problem paying this. For the most part, our city runs pretty smooth and Bemis has done a fair job as mayor. It's a small contribution towards our better than average livability.
Perhaps some of the less necessary spending could be cut?
Â
And if the added costs are the gangs, get the feds and ICE in there to get rid of them.
You want that in dollars, or some other form of currency?
Mr. Mayor -- Â You don't have a RAISING revenue problem - You have a SPENDING problem. Â As Mayor do what most families do, live within your means - CUT your expenses! Â
7.50 seems reasonable. I wonât mind paying it.
 @1984isnow Doesn't it bother you that the reason they're asking for it is because they've mismanaged your money for the last 20 years?
Â
Yes it may be that that would be quite reasonable had they done a good job of managing your money over the years but it's highly irresponsible given what they've actually done.
@FreedomRocks @1984isnow I echo snows repsonse....please show us your proof. It's pretty easy for people to hide behind their keyboards and arm-chair quarterback this stuff. Show us some real numbers....you can do that....can't you...???
@FreedomRocks lol ya, ok
@Maximus Ya like I work for them and just have the numbers handy to give out...not really interested in filing a freedom of information act paper work and coming through all the crap I might get just to validate my comments but feel free to spend your time to prove me wrong and show me up to the entire arm chair crowd... I will even be happy to admit I am wrong when you show your proof and sources that can be easily validated online.
@FreedomRocks
Whereâs your proof of all this miss managed money? Â Correct me if Iâm wrong but Gresham has always seemed like a fairly well run city and Bemis has always seemed like a decent Mayor to me. But maybe Iâm missing something hear. Wouldnât be the first time lol
 @1984isnow  @FreedomRocks research the urban renewal process. they lower taxes to get a area going and are supposed to pay the taxes back into the system latter on.. what has been going on is that they keep taking the money out for other renewals. So basically they are taking money from schools and services to build new buildings.
"Fee" is another word for TAX
 @MagicMoose Yes, it is... So, instead of hiding it, just pass a a tax increase, adjust spending, or live within the current level of revenue.
Â
Â
The mayor is a gopher.
I will say, while Portland residents had their garbage services cut in half and cost go up, here in Gresham we just saw our rates go down for the same or better service. So Gresham must be doing some things right.
Â
I've also seen Gresham go down hill in the crime department since I've lived here or near here. I lived in Troutdale from 12 to 18 and purchased a home in south Gresham about 13 years ago. I'm not 100% sure, but seems the Portland Police Bureau passed Rockwood off to the Gresham Police Department and I'm sure that area is draining a lot of funds from the budget for emergency services. Gresham has also had huge growth over the years, as has many of the Portland Metro Area. I'm not to fond of it being thrown in the general fund while it is suppose to be targeted for those few services, but then again my understanding is those things are paid out of the general fund.
 @DJK So, instead of the General Fund, make a separate accounting fund specifically for these purposes, if the "tax" is imposed. Also, let the voters of Gresham make the decision on the "tax" at the voting booth.
How many households are in the "$7.50 tax" area? How much money are you hoping to collect per year?
"Over 90 percent of the revenue would go to police and fire services, with the rest targeted at parks, Bemis said. The fees would go into the cityâs general fund." Â Â (from the story)
Â
Well, on the surface, this looks like an admirable idea... but with the fees "going into the city's general fund", what's to prevent it from being "liberated" by the powers-that-be for other uses or pet projects..? Â Â What secures those funds so that they are actually used (and reserved for) the specific services for which the fees are collected? Â
Â
Anytime I see the gov't collecting money, supposedly for a specific purpose, I'm reminded of the Social Security "trust" funds... Just sayin'...
Â
@margay1 I agree with you on this. While I can see both points, and understand the need. I don't like the idea of a 'general fund'. The money needs to be seperated and put into accounts specific to that dept. Otherwise, when the economy turns around and they have more income coming back in. These funds will be used for other stuff. Afterall, its a 'general fund'.Â
Mayor Shane Bemis..."..would only be used to help pay for current emergency services and parks."
Â
So why isn't the above covered, under what you NOW receive, Â from the taxpayers ??Â
Show us your proof.....
How much was wasted on that sculpter?
 @bat54 because they spent it on other boondoggle projects that voters would never approve of...
 @FreedomRocks  @bat54 urban renewal
I'd like to know how much money was spent on the electric car charging stations in Gresham. What was the initial cost? What are the maintenance costs including power used? How often are they used? Do people really leave home & need to charge their cars while shopping in downtown Gresham? Do the taxpayers need to fund these stations? I happen to drive a gas powered car. Where can I get some "free" gas?
Heck I'm still waiting for my GM shares.
"Over 90 percent of the tax revenue would go to police and fire services, with the rest targeted at parks." Wow, that will sure make people happy. No money towards sewers, water lines, transportation, fluoride, abandoned properties, paving dirt roads, hayden island...oh wait, sams got that taken care of!
how come you never see the headline.. "mayor tells City to "find way to trim expenses to keep up services" ?
 @whatalife I think that falls under the same category of why they call a 15% budget increase that is a concession from wanting a 20% budget increase a 5% cut in the budget. Those on the left don't seem to actually understand mathematical concepts very well or at least they pretend not to.