Troutdale council discusses $15 public-safety fee, fire-district option amid rising police and fire costs

Troutdale City Manager Ray Young told the City Council at a March 18 work session that the city is facing a large, likely unavoidable increase in the cost of police and fire services and asked councilors whether they want staff to prepare revenue proposals, including a proposed $15-per-month public-safety fee on utility bills.

Young said the city’s best current estimate is “somewhere in the neighborhood of a $1,500,000 increase in our fire and police costs for next budget year,” and that the proposed $15 fee plus discontinuing a $175,000 annual rent credit on the city building would let staff present a budget that preserves existing services for a year.

The discussion matters because Troutdale’s general fund has limited remaining flexibility after recent cuts and capital needs. If the council does not identify new revenue, staff warned that deeper cuts to parks, facilities and other services would be required to cover the increased public-safety cost.

Most of the meeting centered on short-term and long-term options outlined by staff and raised by councilors and residents. Short-term choices discussed were a flat monthly utility bill public-safety fee and targeted cost reductions; longer-term options included rejoining or creating a fire district (Fire District 10 was discussed by name), placing a local option levy before voters, or reestablishing a Troutdale police department or a regional police service shared with neighboring cities.

Young and other staff emphasized there are limits and tradeoffs with each option. He told the council the city has been negotiating with Gresham Fire and the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office about new contract methods and costs; Gresham initially asked the city for a much larger increase before negotiations reduced that figure. Young said staff is continuing talks and cannot promise a final number yet.

City staff described how a utility-based flat fee is commonly used in Oregon and has a precedent in court decisions; staff also noted that consultant work modeled different fee scales. A staff summary prepared for the meeting estimated a $10 flat fee would raise roughly $780,000; staff used that modeling to estimate how a $15 fee could scale, and said the city would likely use an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) approach so large commercial accounts pay proportionally more than single-family households.

Councilors and participants raised practical and political concerns. Councilor Jeffrey (first reference used here) said, “I personally think that doing something like the service fee is like the only option we have to do right now,” citing the immediacy of the shortfall and the multi-year time frame required to form a fire district or pass a local option levy. Councilor Zach and others argued voters are more likely to favor restoring a locally controlled police force than to approve a new fire tax, and several councilors warned that asking for new taxes or fees risks voter rejection unless the council can show prior cuts and clear benefits.

Public commenters pressed for transparency and calculation detail. A resident identified as Paul raised figures from the Gresham ballot measure and questioned a staff cost estimate, noting the voter pamphlet employed a per-thousand assessed-value calculation; he contrasted that progressive method with a flat utility fee, which he called regressive. Resident Sandy urged the council to “plan on being turned down by voters” and recommended the city show visible cuts before asking for new revenue. Budget committee member Danny Staffinson asked the council to review historic budget and staffing trends and “put everything on the table” before deciding.

Staff committed to return with more detail. City Manager Ray Young said staff will provide the council with the consultant reports the city has obtained (a fire-district economic analysis and a separate study of fire-service options) and will bring a formal draft of a public-safety fee proposal to the council in May, timed to inform the budget process. Several councilors asked that staff also outline how a possible local option levy or fire-district transition would work and include estimated revenues and tax impacts for different scenarios.

No formal decisions were made at the work session. The meeting ended after public comment and direction to staff to prepare formal proposals and background materials so the council can consider adopting a fee or other measures during the formal budget process.

At the close of the session the council made a routine motion to adjourn.