[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6577120,"mediaKeyId","3170968-3a29211656379ed67d26d9c39e84645a","parentId",3170968,"title","Council weighs options for Referendum Petition 2025-1: emergency election, November vote or temporary fee","audioSeconds",1540,"startMs",1430000,"endMs",2970000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3170968-3a29211656379ed67d26d9c39e84645a&start=1430&end=2970","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3170968-3a29211656379ed67d26d9c39e84645a/thumbnail_1430000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6577120/Eugene/Lane-County/Oregon/Council-weighs-options-for-Referendum-Petition-2025-1-emergency-election-November-vote-or-temporary-fee","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6577120-31b423a21ca73917712e691a0a37d18b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191531&Signature=c9vsvQdsbVo1SiNMslcy55xmEZOsyMz7TZ0M-1W2FNYyrrGtMFsYoSQD6yRgEklsX4TCR3XyBMofA~8It1XkHFebTkh86Vg5HdWMp1U2VaHaHwOlKO1ni-nEAqhmTDhypQ0lIdENTh-WyhXetp7tT3muKbeR8cRug2NUdU1UkNjOcOCt6J5F0laq9XXXs6N1S3ZaeuTv~99e6QyG-VDnOFSz3HNshisF90B6y8LCDml~K9wZhrhsPt-TpOzKGvAo~LisPEsA~kqXh-RmnH-GJ7yyhAOR5DDzMgX2BZ8OPkKS0FAVVjYc47Vm8Tq0mVGy4IGCkanYstc-RsnAnccRWw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Eugene, OR","date","2025-05-01T18:01:25.163Z","article","Eugene City Council on April 28 continued deliberations about options for Responding to Referendum Petition 2025‑1, including whether to let the measure go to the November ballot, pursue an earlier emergency election, repeal the ordinance that is the subject of the referendum, or adopt an alternative temporary fee or ordinance as a compromise. Council did not take final action; staff outlined timelines, fiscal trade-offs and administration challenges for each path.

City Manager (presenting) summarized the calendar and assumptions: if the council takes no additional action the referendum would appear on the November 4 ballot; Lane County told staff that an August 26 special election is not available except as an emergency election, which has a different timeline; and the deadline to notify Lane County to avoid inclusion on the ballot (by formally repealing the ordinance) is September 3. The manager said the earliest possible effective schedule for an emergency election path would require immediate steps and that the city could potentially reach an emergency-election vote as early as late July only if council moves quickly.

The city manager warned council members about the budget consequences of delaying a decision. She described the city’s reserve for revenue shortfall (adopted in the current forecast at about $10,000,000) and said the city’s six-year forecast would show a material deficit if short-term revenues expire. Using staff illustrations, the manager said a six-year temporary fee that then drops off would create a projected biennial shortfall of roughly $17,000,000 in the next biennium if no other action is taken; a four-year drop-off scenario showed a roughly $12,800,000 operating gap. Staff said that bridging to a November vote would require roughly $1,000,000 per month from July until the election to hold existing services, and that any new fee or ordinance would take about 6–8 months after it is effective before billing and collection begin.

Councilors repeatedly expressed a preference for a November-schedule vote rather than an emergency approach. Councilor Yeh said, \"November would be a better choice if we're gonna if we're looking at those 2 options.\" Councilor Groves and others said they wanted time for a careful public process rather than a rushed emergency vote.

Several councilors and staff discussed design details of a possible compromise ordinance or temporary fee. City staff presented components that an alternate proposal could include: a temporary city services stabilization fee with a clear sunset; a revenue target (staff noted the council’s proposed budget included $8,000,000 in stabilizing funds plus $2,000,000 in new revenue as a reference point); different methods for calculating fees (square footage, water/electric billing classes, or per-customer rates); and accountability measures such as a community advisory process in the fall to inform the longer-term budget work. Councilor Keating objected to the word \"temporary\" in naming, saying, \"The word temporary makes me think that I would be supporting something that is temporary, that the services would be temporary.\" He urged language that emphasizes municipal services and urgency.

Councilors also questioned operational matters. Will Doughty was not the fiscal lead on this topic, but staff said development-fee trust payments to date total about $400,000 from one project and additional payments will flow only after projects reach tax-exemption triggers. Staff said a hiring freeze is already in effect in practice (vacant positions are being held), and that the amended budget proposed by staff would eliminate roughly 35–40 full-time equivalent positions, with union and nonrepresented timelines governing layoff notice and bumping rights.

Councilor Clark confirmed a legal limitation discussed in the meeting: a charter amendment currently caps the payroll tax at its present rate, which prevents council from increasing the payroll tax as a revenue option without charter change.

Staff repeatedly cautioned that delaying revenue certainty can affect the city’s financial metrics and credit rating (Moody’s). The manager described Moody’s interest in governance and fiscal planning and said repeated use of one-time reserves to fund ongoing services would raise credit risk and could increase borrowing costs.

No motions were taken on the referendum topic at the April 28 meeting. Staff asked council to clarify whether the body wanted to pursue an emergency path, prepare an alternate ordinance, or allow the referendum to proceed to November; councilors indicated a range of preferences but voiced a common interest in further community engagement and careful budget analysis.

Ending: Council scheduled further discussion (including a May 14 work session and budget-related meetings) and staff said it will return with more detailed analyses of fee methodologies, projected revenues, legal timelines and proposed accountability mechanisms to inform council’s next steps.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Eugene City Council Work Session: April 28, 2025.","oneSentenceSummary","At an April 28 work session the Eugene City Council continued discussion of options for Referendum Petition 2025‑1, hearing a staff presentation on timelines, fiscal impacts and temporary-fee alternatives; council expressed preference for a November election and clarified key deadlines but took no formal action.","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},6577125,"Eugene approves Eugene–Springfield 2025 consolidated plan and 2025 HUD annual action plan summary",1086,386000,1472000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3170968-3a29211656379ed67d26d9c39e84645a&start=386&end=1472","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3170968-3a29211656379ed67d26d9c39e84645a/thumbnail_386000.jpg","/articles/6577125/Eugene/Lane-County/Oregon/Eugene-approves-EugeneSpringfield-2025-consolidated-plan-and-2025-HUD-annual-action-plan-summary","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6577125-8c66d71d2fb775e11d71a106cf249f58/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191531&Signature=I9vANl3YwQMmUzRV~LU7kkJY7Pl18R4dt7iog3TXNqr92s4MAwPBdj2ciX4yQWLskaSmcpozMDtm~YZCACODG40cy3XDVqJwYn~WXqM4Xj~JvezTzzO-MIEGJ3bIgxf7er5aXTyPGObUOWLRIhh8zt-BMwuOppyyzgx4IvORiyx7YWR~CSY6HR4-0dODFOeIUP9pIX8sgiUFuE2kQuRBoJAo7s7XRVyHA5YusV9sKGjsdFp00nbKRIaCta9Xwv~Qek3TY7ADp-2zkbf0vu71SCx0xmndZk9-WBfc3x3cHfRIYaqGHFznR~U53~pQwCfUxnBrfuoplcRCU13IgP7pgg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Eugene City Council on April 28 adopted a resolution approving the Eugene–Springfield 2025 consolidated plan and approved the 2025 annual action plan summary for federal HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds. Both measures passed on voice or raised-hand counts, 8-0.

The consolidated plan sets the five-year priorities and strategies that Eugene and Springfield will use to allocate CDBG and HOME funds. Genevieve Middleton, the city’s affordable housing policy and planning manager, told council the two jurisdictions expect an estimated $13,000,000 in CDBG and HOME entitlements over the coming five years based on last year’s HUD entitlement and an additional approximately $4,000,000 in program income from revolving loans. Middleton said those figures are estimates and do not reflect future federal changes.

Middleton said the consolidated plan aligns with the city’s Housing Implementation Pipeline and Eugene’s strategic goals, and establishes six recommended strategic goals for 2025–2030: increase supply of affordable housing; rehabilitate existing housing; provide homeownership assistance; support the human services system; promote economic development; and improve low-income neighborhoods. She said the full draft consolidated plan and the detailed needs-assessment and market-analysis chapters are available online at the city’s HUD plans page.

Middleton summarized the federal process: a multi-step, five-year plan that includes data collection, stakeholder consultation, public comment periods and hearings, and an annual action plan and consolidated annual performance evaluation report (CAPER). She also reported a long-term decline in entitlement funding when adjusted for inflation: a roughly 48% drop for Eugene CDBG entitlement and a roughly 60% drop for HOME entitlement since fiscal 2005, which she said reduces the number of projects the entitlement can support while project costs have risen.

Council questions focused on funding certainty, program details and implementation. When Councilor Kishinski asked whether staff had seen signals that entitlement funding might change, Middleton said, \"Congress passed a continuing resolution into law on March 14, which keeps HOME and CDBG entitlement funding at the same level as fiscal year 25. We haven't heard anything specific from HUD about our allocations, and allocations may shift slightly depending on the total number of jurisdictions receiving funding.\"

Councilor Leach asked about typical CDBG award amounts and how many recipients receive funding in a given year; Middleton said amounts vary by program and that human services awards typically support multiple recipients while housing rehabilitation typically funds about one project per year in each city. Councilor Groves asked about the alternate inclusion mechanism (MUPD) trust fund payments; Will Doughty, Community Development Director, said, \"We've received, dollars 400,000, from from 1 project. That's, the only 1 I think that's been paid to date. We have others that are coming soon... but they first have to reach their tax their assessment before they start paying.\"

Middleton noted that HOME funds are explicitly for affordable housing for low-income households and that CDBG activities must meet one of HUD’s national objectives: benefit to low- and moderate-income people, prevention of slum and blight, or meeting urgent needs such as disaster response. She also said the existing consolidated plan expires June 30, 2025, and the new plan would take effect July 1, 2025, after HUD submission.

Council President moved adoption of the resolution approving the consolidated plan; the motion passed 8-0. The council then moved and seconded approval of the annual action plan summary for use of the federal CDBG and HOME entitlements, with the proposed allocation for the coming fiscal year shown at $3,300,000; that motion likewise passed 8-0.

The council did not change the strategic goals or allocations during the meeting. Middleton and staff offered to meet with councilors who wanted additional detail about specific programs or award amounts.

The city will submit the consolidated plan and annual action plan summary to HUD per HUD guidance to take effect July 1, 2025.

Ending: The adopted consolidated plan and annual action plan establish the framework for distributing federal housing and community development funds in Eugene and Springfield for the next five years; staff said more detailed program awards and performance reports will be presented annually and that Councilors may request follow-up briefings on specific programs or funding questions.","On April 28 the Eugene City Council adopted a resolution approving the Eugene–Springfield 2025 consolidated plan and approved the 2025 HUD annual action plan summary allocating Community Development Block Grant and HOME funds; both measures passed unanimously, 8-0.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council weighs options for Referendum Petition 2025-1: emergency election, November vote or temporary fee

Eugene approves Eugene–Springfield 2025 consolidated plan and 2025 HUD annual action plan summary