Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Budget Fire Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City manager warns of tight timeline: council must decide on fire fee or $11.5 million in cuts by Feb. 10
Summary
At a Jan. 22 Eugene City Council work session, the city manager outlined two paths to close the budget gap — enact a proposed fire fee and new revenue or implement approximately $11.5 million in annual general fund cuts — and said the council must decide at a Feb. 10 meeting to avoid compressed deadlines and difficult staff-level implementation.
The Eugene city manager told the City Council on Jan. 22 that the council faces two clear budget choices: move forward with proposed new revenue that includes a fire-services fee, or approve about $11.5 million in annual general fund reductions that staff must build into the 2025–27 budget.
“The plan was to continue today with that. And we've delayed that. ... I thought what I could do today is use the time to talk a little bit about some things that need to happen,” the city manager said, opening the work session on the council’s budget-priorities timeline. The manager later added: “there's a lot at stake with these conversations.”
Why it matters: The city manager said staff already built $20 million in prior reductions into the 2023–25 budget and that the council’s direction on new revenue versus cuts affects what staff can reasonably complete before the statutory and administrative deadlines that feed the budget committee and final adoption. If the council does not choose a path at the Feb. 10 decision meeting, the manager warned, staff will build a proposed budget under the assumption of adopting the $11.5 million in cuts.
Options and scale: The manager described the new-revenue scenario as including roughly $2,000,000 earmarked for fire services and about $8,000,000 for general stabilization; even with that option, staff would still plan for about $3.5 million in cuts. The alternative is to decline new revenue and spread $11.5 million in cuts across the general fund. The manager said both scenarios — one distributing cuts according to current department shares and another protecting core police and fire functions — will be presented Feb. 10.
Council reaction: Councilor Kaczynski said deciding whether to place the fire fee before getting into cuts “will help our community members who are watching this conversation have a little bit of that certainty.” Councilor Zelenka, an experienced budget veteran, also urged the council to resolve the fire-fee question first: “If we are not, if we say yes, then we’re kind of done. If we say we’re not gonna do it, then we have to go through this cuts discussion.” Councilor Leach said she is prepared to vote in favor of a fire fee if a motion appears on Feb. 10 and emphasized the state-wide context for local revenue pressures. Councilor Yeh voiced similar sentiment about resolving the fee first to avoid “wasting precious time arguing about cuts.”
Legal and referendum mechanics: The city attorney explained that the proposed fire fee is structured as a utility-type fee billed to the utility account holder rather than to property owners, which the attorney said differentiates it legally from a property tax. City Recorder Katie explained the referendum timing: petitioners would have 30 days to gather signatures; 5,817 valid signatures are required to qualify a referendum; to reach a May ballot the petitions would need validation by about Feb. 19. The recorder noted statutory processing steps (county review and city certification) and the 66-day scheduling rule relevant to special election dates.
Staff and service impacts: The manager said the city’s general fund is approximately $390 million and that roughly 60% of it — about $240 million — goes to police and fire. The manager also said the city’s general-fund full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing per 1,000 population is at its lowest point in recent history, and that proposed cuts would have recruitment and morale consequences. “Some feel very valued and some feel very not valued,” the city manager said when describing staff reactions to the budget conversation.
Process and timing: The manager described a typical forecasting calendar (forecast in November–December, build Feb–mid-April, budget committee work in late April and May) and warned that pushing the revenue decision into February reduces staff time to prepare balanced proposals. The manager said that if the Feb. 10 meeting does not yield direction, staff will publish a proposed budget that assumes the $11.5 million cut package and that council amendments would follow if members then identify different priorities.
Next steps: Council and staff will meet on Feb. 10 for a two-hour decision session. The manager said two scenarios will be presented: the $11.5 million allocated by current departmental shares, and $11.5 million in reductions structured to protect core police and fire services. The manager said motions related to the fire fee and cut packages will appear in the Feb. 10 packet.
Ending: The council paused further decision-making until Feb. 10 and requested the scenarios the manager described. Staff will continue to develop budget documents and options to align with the council’s direction at that meeting.
