Fairview council adopts ordinance enabling public‑safety fee and sets $15 monthly charge

The Fairview City Council adopted an ordinance authorizing a public‑safety fee and approved a resolution setting the fee at $15 per month, which staff said would help offset rising costs for police, fire and emergency communications.

The vote followed public testimony from residents and a budget committee member who urged the council to approve a revenue measure rather than cut services. Council members said they had exhausted other options and framed the fee as necessary to avoid reductions in patrol and emergency response.

Why it matters: staff and council described multiyear increases in contract costs for fire and police services that outpace property‑tax growth; the fee is intended to shore up general‑fund revenue and reduce the need for service cuts.

What council approved - Ordinance: Council adopted Ordinance 5‑20‑25, which creates the legal framework to charge a public‑safety fee for city services. The ordinance passed on its second reading. - Fee resolution: Council then adopted Resolution 21‑20‑25 setting the public‑safety fee at $15 per month. City staff estimated that a $15 fee would raise roughly $850,000–$855,000 annually and cover a large portion of the roughly $700,000 year‑over‑year increase in public‑safety costs mentioned during discussion.

How it will be billed and who pays City staff explained that the most efficient administrative approach is to place the fee on the city utility bill. For multifamily buildings that are served by a single utility account, each housing unit is typically assessed the fee (staff noted the fee attaches to improved property units rather than occupancy). The council directed staff to produce detailed communications for residents explaining billing mechanics and assistance options.

Public comment and council concerns Several residents and one budget‑committee member spoke in favor of adopting the fee as a difficult but necessary choice. Others urged the city to provide clearer written guidance and hardship assistance for residents who cannot pay.

Councilor discussion emphasized three points: - Necessity: Council members described mounting contract costs — in particular fire and police/911 — and said the fee was less harmful than cutting emergency services. - Communications: Several councilors and public commenters urged the city to include strong explanatory material with utility bills and to list assistance programs for seniors and other vulnerable residents. - Future review: Councilors noted the fee could be revisited annually, and the city manager said staff would review revenues and bring reductions or changes back to council if circumstances permit.

Administration and enforcement Council members asked about enforcement and waivers for residents in hardship. City Manager Nathan George said the ordinance includes standard enforcement language to collect unpaid fees, but he emphasized staff will work with customers to set payment plans and connect residents to assistance programs before pursuing enforcement.

Outcome Council adopted the ordinance and resolution; staff will implement billing changes and begin a public‑information campaign explaining how the fee will appear on utility bills and what support is available for residents who need help paying.

Ending Council members acknowledged the vote was difficult and urged staff to prioritize clear public outreach and to return to the council with updates on collections and any required changes.