Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
St. Helens budget committee approves Option 4, recommends voter measure for a general service fee
Loading...
Summary
The St. Helens Budget Committee approved a revised FY budget (Option 4) that trims department budgets, holds COLAs and furloughs, and leaves a reduced reserve; it also recommended the City Council put a general service fee (ballot measure) in the $15–$25 range before voters.
The St. Helens Budget Committee voted to approve a revised city budget (Option 4) for the coming fiscal year and recommended the City Council place a general service fee on the utility bill before voters, with a suggested range of $15 to $25.
The committee adopted Option 4 — a reduced-budget scenario that assumes no cost-of-living adjustments for bargaining units and no furloughs — after hearing public comment and departmental briefings. The motion to adopt Option 4 passed with committee members voting in favor; the mayor abstained from discussion and votes after declaring an actual conflict of interest related to a family connection to the police department.
Why it matters: Option 4 reduces department budgets and lowers the city—s reserve percentage (staff noted an intended 7% reserve figure, with materials showing 6% in one place), preserves core services in the near term and defers larger revenue changes to the City Council and voters. The committee also voted to recommend that the council take a ballot measure to create a recurring general service fee on the utility bill, forecasted by staff as a possible recurring revenue source to reduce future deficits.
Committee discussion and public comment focused on the expected effects of the cuts and how new revenue would be collected. Several residents said putting the fee on utility bills would disproportionately affect seniors and low‑income households. "Adding $42 a month to our city water bill ... is holding our access to city water hostage," said Catherine Ross, a St. Helens resident, summarizing objections heard during public comment. Brady Graham, another resident, urged greater transparency about past revenue statements and said city finance staff should correct factual errors he identified.
Interim Police Chief Hogue told the committee that a roughly 10% reduction from the department—s originally proposed budget would be manageable for delivering current levels of response in the immediate term: "If we kept the staffing that we have ... we're still gonna have 24 coverage," Hogue said, while cautioning that cuts would reduce training and increase overtime and wellness strains and that hiring the six open positions will take months. Hogue said two candidates were in late-stage background checks.
Staff presentations identified specific budget figures or program impacts discussed for the committee record: option worksheets showed Option 4 producing a low single-digit reserve percentage (staff noted a conversion error but said it should read 7%); Option 5 produced an estimated 11% reserve; the police department—s originally proposed budget was stated at about $6.0 million and the Option 4/5 reductions were described as roughly a 10% haircut to the proposed amount (materials referenced an adjusted police total in the mid‑$5 million range). Staff also said revising the residential/commercial business license proposal (including a rental fee) would add about $145,000; Halloween ticket revenue was estimated at $127,000 in the general fund forecast.
On formal steps beyond the budget approval, the committee also moved that the City Council consider a general service fee and place a ballot question before voters with a recommended fee range of $15 to $25 per billing period. Committee members discussed alternatives — including a larger $42 figure that staff had previously modeled and other revenue ideas such as a gas tax, real estate transfer tax and changes to transient lodging collections — but settled on recommending the lower range to inform council deliberations and potential voter outreach.
The committee approved the technical levy motion required for the record as well: a motion to levy the city's full permanent tax rate (1.9078 per $1,000 assessed value) for the tax year and to accept state shared revenues was moved and seconded in committee and approved.
What happens next: The Budget Committee—s approval sends the recommended Option 4 appropriation and the committee—s advisory recommendation on a general service fee to the City Council for final action. Council discussion will include ordinance language, the fee placement on bills, legal limits (staff noted the city cannot lawfully shut off water for nonpayment of a non-utility service fee and that nonpayment could be pursued through liens), and the exact fee amount to put before voters. The committee and staff repeatedly emphasized that one‑time transfers (property sale proceeds, surplus sales) are available as band-aid fixes but would not replace sustainable recurring revenue.
Ending: Committee members praised staff for multiple budget options and requested the City Council take up the committee—s recommendation, consider a voter measure, and pursue other revenue strategies if voters do not approve a fee that meets the city—s forecasted needs.
