Troutdale residents criticize new $15 public safety fee on water bills; council explains why fee was adopted

Cynthia Velasquez, a Troutdale homeowner, told the city council she was "shocked" to find a $15 public safety fee on her residential water bill and said the charge can push tight household budgets into overdraft. She said the city did not put the measure to a ballot and that communications about the fee were limited to social media and the city newsletter. "Shame on you. No ballot. No public voice," Velasquez said.

Restaurant owner Saul Pompeo told the council he has repeatedly raised concerns about how the city applies fees to food-service businesses. Pompeo said some restaurants pay what he described as double the fee compared with comparable businesses because the fee is scaled by seating capacity. "If you have a bar the same size as me, they need to pay half of what I pay," he said.

City staff and councilors responded that the fee is tied to rising costs for contracted public safety services rather than a new tax. City Manager Mike explained the fee was adopted to address annual increases in the city’s contracts with the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office and Gresham Fire District and said the city’s available tax revenue had not kept pace with escalating contract costs.

Staff explained how the fee and related system development charges (SDCs) are calculated: single-family residences are assessed as an "equivalent dwelling unit" while commercial properties are evaluated on measures such as seating capacity. That schema means larger restaurants pay more because fees are scaled to the facility's expected demand on public services. Councilors and staff acknowledged the result can feel unfair to small business owners and said staff will return with a report explaining the methodology and possible changes, including a proposed master fee schedule that would consider charging by square footage rather than by seats.

Velasquez and Pompeo asked for more direct outreach to homeowners and small-business owners when the city changes fees. Councilors said the city will review communications practices and also noted that legal limits and contracts constrain their options.

Councilors did not take formal action on the comments; the discussion concluded with staff agreeing to prepare a report on fee methodology and a proposal to review the city’s master fee schedule within the coming months.

Ending: City staff and councilors agreed to bring a clearer written explanation of how the public safety fee and related SDCs are calculated and to include a menu of possible fee application changes for council consideration. No vote was taken on reversing or suspending the fee during the meeting.