Troutdale council weighs starting local police department versus renewing Multnomah County contract

Troutdale — City staff and councilors spent the June 16 work session reviewing two paths for local policing: continuing a contract with the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) under a revised county proposal or forming a Troutdale Police Department.

At the meeting Mike (staff) led a packet review and said the materials include the current Multnomah County contract (appendix B) and a revised appendix B with a roughly $4.7 million county proposal in the early years. He described the city’s draft police model as a smaller in‑house department: "The Troutdale proposal proposes a police chief, a lieutenant, two sergeants, eight police officers," plus some civilian staff, and said the packet lists about 15.3 total FTEs with roughly 12 sworn officers and three non‑sworn administrative roles. Mike showed a typical weekly schedule and flagged coverage risks — single‑officer windows in the early morning and some late‑night periods — and emphasized supervisory overlap to enable handoffs between shifts.

Why it matters: staff said projected property‑tax revenue, combined with Gresham fire contract costs and 911/dispatch fees, leaves an annual shortfall that currently is funded by a public‑safety fee on water bills. The council discussed whether to place a five‑year levy on the ballot to close the gap; staff noted there are filing deadlines in July to make the ballot timetable.

Costs and tradeoffs: councilors and staff repeatedly compared line items. Mike noted that if code enforcement and other civilian positions are removed from the police total, the Troutdale police operating cost would be about $3.7 million; he said the county’s revised package would be about $4.7 million in early years but would reduce costs relative to the city’s full proposal by roughly $1 million in the short term. Councilors cautioned that starting a new department requires significant one‑time capital outlays (vehicles, equipment) and an overlap in year one for transition—an expense that could reach roughly a million dollars or more, according to staff.

Council discussion and options: some councilors favored a hybrid approach — adopt the revised county contract while hiring a chief and phasing in Troutdale officers over 12 months — to reduce immediate risk and give the city time to secure grants, hire staff and build policies. Others urged caution, saying recruitment and pay differentials (councilors cited higher county pay scales) could create a revolving door and make staffing expensive. Several councilors said the primary policy question is whether Troutdale wants more direct local control of policing priorities even if that entails financial risk.

Sheriff’s role and mutual aid: councilors asked what baseline services the county must provide and how mutual aid would work if Troutdale ends its contract. The Multnomah County Sheriff attending the meeting explained county responsibilities funded from the county general fund (civil process, jails, river patrol, dive team and search and rescue) and said the contract‑funded deputies and detectives assigned to Troutdale would be removed from the sheriff’s contract allocation if a contract is terminated; she added that mutual aid and specialty teams will respond in major incidents but warned mutual aid cannot substitute for daily, dedicated patrol staffing.

Community and next steps: councilors spoke about public sentiment, grant opportunities (homeland security and law‑enforcement grants for equipment or personnel), and the practical timing for a levy or other revenue. Staff and several councilors recommended the city attorney seek a legal opinion and a county statement that clearly defines baseline county services and what would change if a contract ends. No formal decision was made; councilors said they expect the topic to return for a formal action vote soon, and staff asked for clear direction so hiring and procurement would not begin and then reverse course.

Attribution: quotes and specific staffing proposals above are based on presentation materials and statements delivered during the June 16 work session by Mike (staff presenter) and by the Multnomah County Sheriff, who answered council questions on county responsibilities. Subsequent steps reported by staff include preparing ballot timing options for a potential five‑year levy and arranging follow‑up legal and intergovernmental clarifications.

Ending: The council did not take a vote on contracting or on forming a police department at the work session; members directed staff to gather further detail on baseline county services, mutual‑aid mechanisms and levy timing before deciding whether to pursue a hybrid transition or a local department.