Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears proposal to require voter approval for fees collected through utility bills
Summary
A council member proposed drafting a charter amendment to require voter approval for imposing, increasing or changing any fee collected through the city's utility billing system; councilors and staff discussed charter vs. ordinance approach, sunset clauses and timeline for referral to the ballot.
A council member proposed on July 16 that the City of Saint Helens refer a charter amendment to voters requiring majority approval for new fees or changes to fees collected through the city's utility-billing system.
The proposed referral text (presented as a draft concept) would define “fee” as any charge collected through utility billing that is not a direct user charge for consumption, require voter approval for imposing or changing such fees, and include ballot‑measure requirements that specify the exact dollar amount, a sunset date unless reauthorized, and the specific purpose for which proceeds would be used. The draft also included a provision allowing council to reduce a voter‑approved fee without returning to voters if economic conditions improved.
Why it matters: Proponents said the amendment would give voters direct control over fees that are collected on utility bills and increase transparency; opponents cautioned that inserting such requirements into the charter is a consequential restriction on future councils and could complicate municipal finance.
Council and staff discussion
Council members discussed whether an ordinance, which could be adopted and amended by council, would suffice, or whether a charter amendment — which is more durable and cannot be changed without a voter vote — was the appropriate route. City Attorney Ashley confirmed that code adopted by ordinance could be repealed by a subsequent council, while a charter amendment would place the rule at the constitutional level for the city and require voters to change it.
Councilors supported including clear ballot language and a sunset provision. One councilor emphasized voter control: “They want a voice,” the councilor said during discussion, urging that voters be asked to decide. Staff advised the council on timing and deadlines: it is possible to prepare referral text for the November ballot but timelines are tight; a spring ballot would allow more time for drafting and review.
Ending: Councilmembers signaled support for exploring the proposal further and directed the city administrator and city attorney to draft referral text and a ballot title for review at a future meeting.
