CANYON CITY — The Grant County Court, after making plans for a tax levy to be placed on the May 2024 primary election ballot to provide funding for the sheriff’s office, has voted to move the levy up to this November’s special election instead.

The new election timing stems from action on June 21, when the county court approved a special election, at a cost of $7,000, for the public to vote yay or nay on the operation of the new road district. The road district would not be a taxing district, officials said, but rather a conduit for federal funds coming to the county.

The county court, at its meeting on Wednesday, June 28, voted to move the proposed public safety levy from May to November through an amended motion, which passed 2-1. County Commissioner John Rowell and County Court Judge Scott Myers voted yes and Commissioner Jim Hamsher, who has been opposed to a levy, voted no.

Hamsher expressed concern that the voters might be confused with two different measures on the same ballot. In addition to voting yes or no on the operation of the non-tax road district, voters will be asked to weigh in on the proposed public safety tax levy.

“Then we say this one will impose 60 cents per thousand and this one won’t,” Hamsher said. “I’m afraid it will be confusing to the voters. … I would rather take the time talking to (the voters), and I don’t feel there’s enough time to do that on both fronts for that.”

Myers had expressed in the previous county court meeting that he was personally willing to pay for increased public safety and the only way to move toward that is to ask the voters with the ballot measure.

“If we wait another almost a full calendar year and have it in May 2024, it’s hard to guess what else will be on that ballot that people would be voting on and it may hurt our chances for passing, so I think it’s best to move on.”

The Grant County Budget Committee approved in April a $99.3 million balanced budget, but the panel’s citizen members expressed concern that expenses would outpace revenue in the coming years as large revenue enhancement and grant payments from the federal government run out. The citizen members had asked that the court put the levy out for a vote in November in order to help them better plan for next year’s budget process.

Kathy Smith, a former county treasurer, was among citizen members of the budget committee, and attended the meeting.

“When that $800,000 (in federal grant money) is gone next year, we have to come up with revenue … or cuts from somewhere, so we thought if we put $400,000 as a levy, that would be part of it. That’s the revenue. We’d have to find cuts or adjustments for the other ($400,000),” Smith said. “It’s not additional officers for John Day, it has nothing to do with John Day. It has to do with (the sheriff’s) existing officers he’s dealing with right now, and has had for the past three or four budget years, so that’s what has to be told to everybody so the outlying areas don’t think they’re picking up John Day. Because that’s not what they’re doing.”

Plans call for a countywide five-year operating levy at a rate of 60 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value, which would raise approximately $400,000 per year for the sheriff’s office.

Rowell said the money would provide the sheriff the capability of adding three patrol officers and their equipment needed to operate for the next five years.

John Day represents the largest share of service calls to the sheriff’s office — about 40% — but is currently not paying for patrol services. Sheriff Todd McKinley said “the city created the issue” of the need for the levy, which would be able to fund patrol coverage for the city of John Day.

“Even if this levy goes forward, it is to be able to cover the city, there is no question, because of the taxing it is putting upon our services,” he said. “The (largest) percentage of our calls are going to the city. If we did not have the city, we are amply covered to cover the county.”