City of St. Helens finance staff laid out a proposal to introduce a general service fee billed on utility statements to help close a projected shortfall in the general fund, prompting questions from committee members about legality, equity and timing.

Gloria Butch, city finance director and budget officer, told the Budget Committee the general service fee would be billed through utility bills for efficiency and is intended to sustain core general services and restore reserve levels. "The fee will be used to sustain all general services and maintain a 20% general fund reserve balance," Butch said during the presentation.

The committee discussed multiple fee levels and forecast scenarios. Butch showed a range of options, saying a $20 fee would leave a sizeable shortfall while a $42.10 monthly fee would bring reserves near 18% in the first year but decline thereafter under conservative growth assumptions. She emphasized the city modeled a 1% annual growth in housing units for fee forecasting.

City Attorney Ashley Wygott said she would research legal precedents and risks. "I can look into" precedents and city options, she told the committee, referencing a League of Oregon Cities survey of municipal public-safety fees across Oregon.

Members raised concerns about the proposal's distributional impact and the potential for legal challenges. Councilor Steve Toski asked whether the fee applied per dwelling unit; Butch confirmed the city would bill per dwelling unit (single-family homes, apartments, ADUs). Several members urged caution about placing a new recurring fee on households that already face rising utility rates.

Mayor Jennifer Massey declared a conflict of interest at the meeting because her husband is a city police officer and said she would not participate in police staffing votes; the committee and legal counsel discussed when that conflict would require recusal if future agenda items focused specifically on the police department.

Committee members debated alternatives including an optional tax levy, furloughs, a reduction in cost-of-living adjustments and one-time uses of sale proceeds. Financial staff noted an optional tax levy typically costs the city merchant-service fees and yields less net revenue than a utility-billed fee.

No fee decision or formal vote occurred; the committee directed staff to provide further analysis, legal research and public-facing comparisons. Butch said she would send comparative materials and a Q&A to committee members ahead of the next meeting and requested committee questions by the deadlines she set.

Ending: The committee scheduled a public hearing and follow-up discussion at the next meeting; staff will return with legal analysis, comparable-city data and updated financial scenarios for committee review.