Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge transparency, request audit and ask council to delay manufactured-housing ordinance
Summary
Multiple residents during public comment on Jan. 15 urged new council leadership to pursue transparency, a forensic audit of city finances, and to halt or revisit an ordinance they said would allow manufactured homes broadly.
Dozens of residents used the Jan. 15 visitor-comment period to press the newly seated council on transparency, municipal finances and the land-use ordinance that several speakers said would allow manufactured or mobile homes in single-family neighborhoods.
Steve Topaz, identifying himself as a local resident, asked for public forums on large construction projects and for records related to project plans and environmental findings. "I'd like to have a forensic audit of the city finances," Topaz said, and also asked the council for minutes of executive meetings related to the hiring and acceptance of the police chief.
Robin Toski, a St. Helens resident, asked the council to "stop this process today. Let's go back to the drawing board" in reference to the ordinance on manufactured housing. Toski said the city had met state affordable-housing requirements and urged the council to adopt architectural standards instead of broadly allowing manufactured units on any lot.
Steven Toski, a 2024 mayoral candidate and resident, told the council the community had voted for change and said Ordinance 3306 (also referenced as "3 306" in remarks) would be "directly contrary to the goal of economic prosperity." Toski described what he said were past conflicts of interest in earlier votes and urged the council to send the ordinance back for more work.
Speakers during public comment also raised questions about the Millard Road development and asked for details about the original proposal and how it changed. One speaker asked that selections to ad hoc committees be more transparent and requested consideration for appointment to future committees.
The council did not take formal action on public comments; comments were recorded and several council members acknowledged the requests and signaled willingness to review records and consult staff.
Why it matters: Public comments signaled strong local concern about code changes that affect neighborhoods, a demand for more timely public records and audits, and continued scrutiny of past contractual and project-management decisions. Those concerns framed later council discussion of the planning package and requests for legal review.
