[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6571535,"mediaKeyId","3170970-ff45dac39e386e3bdb3b415962180a15","parentId",3170970,"title","Council debates options, timelines and potential off-ramps for referendum on fire fee; staff to return with alternatives","audioSeconds",4055,"startMs",1145000,"endMs",5200000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3170970-ff45dac39e386e3bdb3b415962180a15&start=1145&end=5200","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3170970-ff45dac39e386e3bdb3b415962180a15/thumbnail_1145000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6571535/Eugene/Lane-County/Oregon/Council-debates-options-timelines-and-potential-off-ramps-for-referendum-on-fire-fee-staff-to-return-with-alternatives","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6571535-3064a9b3d46c386747b9124a4a46846a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775169271&Signature=CZYo7LSR4aiGUh-ov-zI-rQ3si9lg4WouKZwd98sb~QGEbcnBLUU0aXwjg0amW5GLgpvou6aOn4q9YEP2Y2LgBEclORJIztYHw~am7xx-bPmqfui5wD5gQEykXb6kJKseqaF--rKkFgBkFIhRPniPYycLXNhHtQSfIqUcgxrADKnCRgvdv0cyjuwRhfKr8xjBuWOAbC4aW4IAdBoWS6GZ7GxMMHhnZIFAXKEkVAnkXPyhbBk0yIxtxkfrsTa57vuSieZXb6ZEY7FpNa3tQ6ZPOh5HaD7~kkTzo-IqCFJ~FD3x3mypWA0vj94ORHalxLSBAcSxa1SoqyTrZx3zEQLTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Eugene, OR","date","2025-05-01T18:01:25.16Z","article","The Eugene City Council spent the bulk of its April 21 meeting in a work session discussing options related to referendum petition 2025-1, the public referral opposing a city ordinance commonly described in public discussion as a “fire fee.” Councilors debated whether to keep the existing ordinance in place, pursue an alternative ordinance, or repeal the measure and let voters decide.

City Manager opened the work session noting council had previously requested dedicated time to explore “what an alternative path might look like,” and offered that staff could return with timelines and draft options if the council provided direction.

Councilors debated three recurring themes: whether to treat any change as a short-term, time-limited (sunset) solution or as ongoing revenue; whether funds should be strictly dedicated to fire services or broader general-fund priorities; and how to balance simplicity of implementation with protections for low-income households and business impacts.

Councilor Kaczynski said, “I would be very uncomfortable with a repeal,” and expressed support for short-term revenue to avoid deep service cuts, arguing that some fire services cannot be funded with one-time dollars. Councilor Clark countered that long-term policy choices to grow the permanent tax base are preferable to short-term revenue measures, and warned that replacing one fee with another without voter input “would be an insult” to electors who referred the matter. Councilor Yeh said she favored a time-limited sunset and suggested a period “around” four to six years would give the council time to plan; she also raised reconsidering the $2,000,000 additional allocation to the fire department.

Councilor Zelenka asked staff for precise cost and timeline information, including the estimated election cost (noted in staff materials as “over a quarter million dollars”) and deadlines for an August special election versus the November general election. City staff responded that to pursue an emergency (August) election the city must file certain paperwork with the county by July 10 and that to place a measure on the November ballot staff would file by September 3 if the council had not repealed the ordinance earlier.

Councilors and staff discussed implementation mechanics for alternatives. Staff confirmed that a repeal is not required before drafting and holding public hearings for a different ordinance; any new ordinance would still need public hearings and adoption steps. The city manager noted that meeting packet timelines set the May 28 deadline for the ordinance title and that May 21 was effectively the last date to forward a new ordinance to a June 16 public hearing under the calendar discussed.

Several councilors recommended additional guardrails if an alternative measure were pursued: a clear sunset or review date (suggested ranges by councilors ran from two to ten years, with several mentions of four to six years), enhanced accountability such as a citizen oversight panel or audits modeled on prior road and park measures, and clearer naming so voters understand whether a fee is dedicated to fire services or to broader city services.

On the question of reserves and bridging the budget gap, staff said the city has identified roughly $8,000,000 in one-time dollars that could be used as a bridge, but cautioned such reserves should not be relied on as a permanent solution. The city manager warned that new revenue would not be collected immediately: any newly adopted fee would be months from generating full revenue, so timing matters for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

After extended discussion the council voted to direct the city manager to schedule additional work sessions for further discussion; the motion to schedule a work session on April 28 (and further sessions referenced for May 14) passed unanimously by an 8 to 0 vote.

Councilors repeatedly emphasized a desire to pursue additional information quickly if the majority of the council wishes to consider an alternative ordinance, while also recognizing some council members are reluctant to short-circuit the electorate’s referral. Staff agreed to return with options, implementation timelines, sample ordinance language and cost modeling for the next work sessions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Eugene City Council Public Hearing: April 21, 2025.","oneSentenceSummary","The Eugene City Council spent its April 21 work session weighing how to respond to referendum petition 2025-1 — the public referral of a fire-fee ordinance — debating repeal, alternative fee structures, sunset lengths, accountability measures and election timing.","taxTitle","Eugene , Lane County, Oregon","taxId",2848,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6571540,"Council appoints Lindsay Fultz as interim police auditor in unanimous vote",78,1070000,1148000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3170970-ff45dac39e386e3bdb3b415962180a15&start=1070&end=1148","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3170970-ff45dac39e386e3bdb3b415962180a15/thumbnail_1070000.jpg","/articles/6571540/Eugene/Lane-County/Oregon/Council-appoints-Lindsay-Fultz-as-interim-police-auditor-in-unanimous-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6571540-f98f5b7c8023a296d12f6f1b5ab70bfd/orig.mp4?Expires=1775169271&Signature=NSvjSWiOm77KdeDJBurjR34DlhSanfRZqlJQTKI-aAJsIWVIm0TSO0-sLt6ROhrlYjoC6WoCnchyUUAGFU7I0ZZIKLjXIjMw7sjxiBIycFH3VlV7CG4kcIQtvrvynmgNIgasU-TdPWqX0HCS3~dnR6FewFxyNWbTWzqinDp47ACQaCVU~u~P2z1FkbcY9YPjWWgvF36vtv2T2GkkB-vUtC1S2RVlmEmSS244K53sumCJibXi34k~~OgA6cbKLuUJCh2GMm~acpU7uX4b17AmhjiLlZHM~PCUZK1WvvS4nuCmVpHOtI94vJXUTsROX5bFnpyY5HSxnh8SqkvrO247sg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Eugene City Council on April 21 moved and approved the appointment of Lindsay Fultz as interim police auditor.

A council member moved to “appoint Lindsay Fultz as the interim police auditor and authorize the council president to execute the interim police auditor employment agreement set forth in attachment A to this AIS.” Another councilor seconded the motion. After no further discussion, the mayor called for a vote. The motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0.

The appointment authorizes the council president to execute the employment agreement described in the meeting packet (Attachment A). The council did not discuss the agreement’s substantive terms during the motion; those terms are contained in the packet’s attachment and were referenced by staff.

The council recorded the vote as 7 in favor, 0 opposed; recorded names of individual yes votes were not read into the public transcript during the roll call.

The motion concluded the council’s second agenda item before the meeting moved to a work session on a referendum petition.","The Eugene City Council appointed Lindsay Fultz as interim police auditor and authorized the council president to execute an interim employment agreement; the motion passed unanimously at the April 21 meeting.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6571545,"Eugene holds public hearing on hazardous substance user fees; city staff, residents discuss toxics board staffing",216,405000,621000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3170970-ff45dac39e386e3bdb3b415962180a15&start=405&end=621","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3170970-ff45dac39e386e3bdb3b415962180a15/thumbnail_405000.jpg","/articles/6571545/Eugene/Lane-County/Oregon/Eugene-holds-public-hearing-on-hazardous-substance-user-fees-city-staff-residents-discuss-toxics-board-staffing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6571545-177759f184dc425edb72a53ded09ed4a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775169271&Signature=IVdx3cxU5XLjrFOkql8rk7knMXL5O~i1vua10oPYZfLMzElacK8CwdmMRQNyBCgxxfGG9MHNYVxBNMyIMpfwqNYWmuKLpredQkLtuaHAnwPbVITPI4mrUaw524cYypu81ASXmEAgkEpRUltDcAnPt8sbiv2V0~Nah06TsLDW5M~FvcPEhaZEZMJAdoRxp~ysRZ1v5suNZoGlQg9Sua5MJDOW0WQbiK~9roxXN-A3XcQ5P0eA6SIGT~3a0a1fxsKOgHpc1EZVoBpCn8vqRjxRpXFYALK~N7k9cgfxIoZEhFSzfKM9gwOXMpWhLlwy0kleWg02xkue8mt9Y9zWuvqesA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Eugene City Council on April 21 opened a public hearing on an ordinance adopting annual hazardous substance user fees meant to support the city’s toxics reporting program.

City Manager said, “The fee of $85.62 per FTE was recommended by the toxics board and is the subject of tonight's public hearing,” noting the fee is based on numbers of employees, not numbers of chemicals.

The hearing drew a member of the public who described attending an informational session led by the fire marshal and praised the program’s role for first responders. The commenter said the toxics board “has not been fully filled with people over the last few years,” and that the board has at times lacked the quorum needed to conduct business.

The presentation and subsequent council questions focused on three practical issues: what the toxics program provides to first responders, overlap between city and state reporting, and board recruitment. Fire Marshal explained the program “makes the environment safer for the community as a whole” and that annual reporting keeps safety issues “on the forefront” for industries and responders. The Fire Marshal also said the Oregon State Fire Marshal has primary responsibility for setting certain state-level reporting numbers and that the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has a role for substances on federal lists.

Councilors pressed staff on whether the city and state reporting systems could be consolidated or automated to reduce duplicate industry reporting. A former fire chief on the council recalled repeated efforts to explore a single, automated form that could populate both city and state systems; staff confirmed that facilities currently must report separately to the city, the state, and in some cases to federal systems.

Several councilors and the public raised recruitment for the toxics board as a concern, with comments that the board has been difficult to fully staff and that vacancies limit the board’s ability to complete work.

No council action was taken at the hearing; the public hearing was opened and closed during the meeting and moved on to other agenda items.

The council recessed the hearing and proceeded with other business after questions and brief comments from council members.","The Eugene City Council held a public hearing April 21 on an ordinance setting annual hazardous substance user fees, including a recommended rate of $85.62 per full-time-equivalent employee; speakers and councilors questioned the toxics board’s staffing, reporting burdens on industry, and regulatory overlap with state agencies.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council debates options, timelines and potential off-ramps for referendum on fire fee; staff to return with alternatives

Council appoints Lindsay Fultz as interim police auditor in unanimous vote

Eugene holds public hearing on hazardous substance user fees; city staff, residents discuss toxics board staffing