St. Helens budget committee adopts $99.51M budget after tense debate over police staffing, tourism and library cuts

The St. Helens Budget Committee approved a fiscal-year 2026–27 city budget on June 1 after a marathon meeting that featured repeated public pleas to preserve police staffing, urgent testimony from the county sheriff and heated debate over tourism program spending and council stipends.

The final budget figure recorded on the floor after amendments and reallocations was $99,510,232. Committee members adjusted revenues and expense lines across funds — raising the general fund service support (GFSS) from tourism to $300,000, reducing tourism materials-and-services spending, cutting council stipends (a recommendation that passed on the floor) and restoring two front-office positions at a furloughed level — before passing the overall budget.

Public safety dominated public testimony. Columbia County Sheriff Brian Pixley told the committee that eliminating two‑thirds of the police department “is a fundamental dismantling of the public safety of the largest city in Columbia County,” warning of delayed responses and spillover impacts on neighboring jurisdictions. The St. Helens Police Association’s attorney, Dan Tannell, told the committee fully replenishing an officer is expensive: “The cost to hire, train, outfit, send to the academy… is a $150,000 per sworn officer.” Both urged the committee to consider long-term operational costs when reviewing cuts.

Staff presented a revised staffing plan for the police department that staff described as a ‘bridge’ intended to sustain staffing for roughly six months while the city council decides whether to refer a police services fee for voters in November. Budget officer Gloria Bush told the committee that if the council does not refer the fee, or if voters reject it, the police department would have to reduce staffing to minimum levels with no patrol or investigations beyond prioritized calls.

Several committee members expressed deep discomfort with a plan that would fund policing only for six months and then create a cliff. Committee members discussed alternatives, including staggered reductions or distributing cuts so service remains more even across the 12‑month budget year. The chief warned that a significant staff reduction could require laying off roughly 13 officers under the numbers discussed.

Tourism funding also drew scrutiny. Committee members debated a tourism contractor’s large variance between budgeted and actual spending and voted to revert tourism materials-and-services spending to prior-year totals while increasing the GFSS pass-through to the general fund to $300,000. The committee also passed a motion recommending city council review council stipends; on the committee floor a motion recommending their removal passed.

Library staff, part-time employees, union representatives and residents urged the committee to keep library and recreation staff funded; the committee restored library and recreation staffing in the revised draft. The committee also voted to restore two front-office positions (utility billing and administrative assistant) at a furloughed level and to add one code-enforcement headcount funded from public-works contingency.

What the budget does and does not do: Staff emphasized that the revised budget removes a proposed general service fee from revenue estimates and aims to balance the general fund with a roughly 9% reserve after committee actions. The police budget, as submitted and adjusted, was framed as an annual appropriation but with operational intent to preserve staffing for the first six months pending policy decisions by the council.

Who said what (selected quotes): “The proposal to eliminate roughly two thirds of the police department is... a fundamental dismantling of the public safety of the largest city in Columbia County,” Sheriff Brian Pixley told the committee. Police association counsel Dan Tannell warned, “the cost to hire, train... is a $150,000 per sworn officer.” A public commenter who had reviewed the urban renewal budget told the committee: “the revenue is less than the expense, and it's negative.”

Next steps: The budget is adopted for FY2026–27 as a full-year appropriation. The city council will receive committee recommendations; staff will return with any supplemental budgets if the council refers a fee to the ballot and voters approve it. Committee members asked staff for more detailed legal‑cost breakdowns and for monitoring of tourism performance and police staffing metrics.

A note on process: Committee members repeatedly stressed the need for better granularity in the professional services line (legal fees) and asked staff to separate legal costs in future budget documents to make litigation-related risk and contingency planning more transparent.