Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to prepare budget for current revenues after $24 fee defeat
Summary
During the May 20 work session, multiple Saint Helens residents told the council the recently defeated $24 water fee signaled mistrust and urged officials to base the budget on current revenues, consider deep police-budget cuts and improve transparency around proposed future ballot measures.
Several residents used the May 20 council work session to press Saint Helens officials to rethink budgeting assumptions after voters rejected a proposed $24 fee. "85.91% of the voters rejected the $24 fee," resident Steve Toske told the council, adding the result reflected "an accurate perception by the public of mismanagement of public funds" and urging the council to plan a budget based on existing revenues rather than "phantom revenue."
Toske urged the council to seek a budget that fits available funds and said the police budget should be cut substantially. "We're gonna need to cut about $2,000,000 from the police budget," Toske said, arguing the city must demand from officials a realistic plan for how policing would operate within present revenues.
Other public commenters echoed concerns about transparency and staffing. Jan Succarini criticized how the $24 measure was described in city materials and warned that wording such as "adjusted annually using CPI-U" should have been more prominent. "You are gonna be able to raise that fee every year based on the CPI-U," Succarini said, calling for clearer disclosure about the mechanism for future increases.
Brady Preheim, another resident, questioned whether the city can proceed with a new police station while reducing sworn staffing. "I think it is time for us to not build a police station, and we're not gonna have any cops to put in the police station," Preheim said, arguing the capital plan and operating budget must be aligned.
Council President Jessica Chilton acknowledged the public comments and the work session moved on to staff briefings. Speakers suggested concrete next steps the council could take: ask the budget officer for a version of the proposed budget that uses only currently available revenues; publicly publish turnout and vote totals as residents requested; and delay or re-examine capital commitments that would increase long-term operating costs.
The session did not produce a vote on any of these requests; residents said they expect follow-up during the regular evening council meeting and in subsequent budget discussions.
