Troutdale introduces ordinance to authorize police and fire services fee; budget committee had proposed $15 monthly rate

The Troutdale City Council held a public hearing to introduce an ordinance that would authorize the collection of a police and fire services fee billed on utility accounts. Staff said the ordinance is introductory only; the council would set a specific dollar amount later by resolution. City staff indicated the manager's proposed budget assumes a $15 per month equivalent residential unit (ERU) fee, with billing to begin July 1 if adopted.

The fee matter is significant because city staff and the council cited substantially increased public‑safety costs that created a budget gap the fee is intended to close. The ordinance text defines permitted uses for fee revenue (acquisition, construction, operation, maintenance and repair related to police and fire services), provides billing and collection mechanisms consistent with other utilities, and includes an appeals process administered by the finance director with further appeal to the city manager.

Eric Miller told the council the ordinance does not itself set the fee amount; that action would come by separate council resolution. Staff said the fee revenue must be used only for police and fire services and cannot be used for unrelated general fund spending. The ordinance language also allows, but does not require, use of collected funds for start‑up costs should the city later choose to establish a municipal police or fire department.

Councilors and staff discussed hardship relief. Miller reminded the council that Troutdale already operates senior and low‑income discount programs for utilities; those programs provide partial relief and the general fund makes transfers to offset the resulting reduced revenue so other customers are not charged more. Staff said the police and fire services fee would fall under the same administrative umbrella for billing and that the low‑income/senior relief approach remains the same.

Multiple council members noted the fee was discussed at the budget committee and indicated a $15 monthly fee was the working assumption included in the manager's proposed budget. Councilors said the ordinance would be followed by a resolution setting the rate, after which the council could adopt the fee and it would appear on customers' utility bills. The council opened the public hearing and received brief comments; no adoption vote occurred at introduction.

Staff said they would return with a resolution proposing the fee rate; council adoption of the ordinance and subsequent resolution would determine billing to begin in July if approved. The council did not set the rate at the meeting and no final vote occurred on the ordinance introduction.