Troutdale budget committee weighs $32 public‑safety fee as city considers limited police startup

Troutdale’s Budget Committee spent the April 22 meeting debating how to cover growing public‑safety costs and whether to restart a local police department or continue contract policing through intergovernmental agreements. Staff presented a “ramp‑up” option — hiring a police chief and lieutenant now (2 FTE) — and an alternative “startup” scenario that would add 13 FTEs to create a limited Troutdale Police Department, including patrol squads and administrative support.

The committee was told the city faces a multi‑year shortfall driven largely by rising contract costs for policing and fire protection. The city manager described the ramp‑up as “a proposal to begin the process of moving toward restarting the Troutdale Police Department” and said the full startup would likely not provide the county’s specialty capabilities and would rely on mutual aid for things such as gang investigations and SWAT support.

Why it matters: Staff said the difference between continuing a Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) IGA and restarting an in‑house force could produce long‑term savings — roughly $700,000 the first year and larger amounts in subsequent years — but would also require up‑front hiring, vehicles and equipment. Meanwhile, the council needs revenue now to avoid drawing down reserves.

Committee members focused on the public‑safety fee, an ordinance‑driven calculation that covers the delta between total public‑safety costs and property‑tax revenue designated for those services. Staff summarized three scenarios: status quo (the fee as proposed at $32/month), the limited PD startup (which reduces the city’s IGA payments), and a hypothetical voter‑approved fire district that would shift some costs off the city’s books and reduce the fee in later years.

Several councilors and members of the public pressed for equity and outreach. Diane Castillo White, who identified herself as a resident, asked that “the public be made aware of the need and the impact, and that they get a chance to vote on the increase.” Saul Pompeo, a public commenter, questioned why the fee is attached to water/sewer billing units and raised concerns about commercial billing rules.

Staff recommended two short‑term management steps and committed to return with numbers: apply $750,000 of the proposed Buxton property work as an offset to the fee calculation, identify roughly $1 million of additional general‑fund reductions (vacant positions, delayed hires, consultant cuts), and report back with a package that preserves a target beginning fund balance near $1.9–2.0 million. The city manager said removing the $32 fee now would reduce the city’s unappropriated balance markedly, and that the fee helps avoid falling off the “budget cliff” while longer‑term structural solutions (levies, district formation, or a different tax mix) are considered.

A few councilors suggested exploring a progressive local income tax as a long‑term, more equitable alternative; staff and city attorney indicated such options would require substantial administrative work and council direction.

What’s next: Staff will return at the committee’s next meeting with a revised budget package that incorporates the $750,000 Buxton offset (or an alternative lease plan), identified cuts to reach the committee’s target, and updated public‑safety fee scenarios. The committee signaled openness to holding a voter measure for a levy in November, but agreed that the fee will likely be needed in the near term to stabilize reserves.

Quote: “This is just a proposal — it’s to begin the process of moving toward restarting the Troutdale Police Department,” the city manager said. “If you want us to find a certain dollar amount or reduce it, they can do that.”

The committee recessed and scheduled follow‑up deliberations.