Eugene council directs staff to return $11.5M budget-cut options, asks for two allocation scenarios

The City of Eugene City Council on Jan. 15 directed the city manager to bring back potential strategies to address an $11,500,000 annual shortfall in the general fund and asked staff to present two allocation scenarios for council review.

The request came during a work session on the city’s biennial budget planning. City Manager (unnamed in the transcript) told councilors the timing is compressed because budget decisions must be finalized for the May adoption process and said, “this really is in your hands,” as staff sought direction on the total gap to solve for and how to spread reductions across programs and departments.

The council’s chief financial officer, Twyla Miller, said the current structural general fund target in the forecast is $9,800,000 annually and that including previously one-time items as ongoing would raise that target to $11,500,000. Miller described components that had been proposed for the “base gap,” including a proposed $1,000,000 annual adjustment for police vacancy funding, $500,000 for state-mandated planning work (PDD mandate), a $900,000 annual facilities transfer, and a $500,000 annual transfer to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Miller said the numbers she presented were annual figures.

Council discussion emphasized protecting foundational public-safety and infrastructure services while acknowledging pressure on other programs. Councilor Clark said he would not want cuts to fire or police, adding that the community’s core services should be stabilized first. Councilor Zelenka and others urged caution about deep reductions to libraries, parks and human services, noting those program cuts would be felt by residents. Several councilors favored asking staff to show the larger $11.5 million figure so the council could see the full set of tradeoffs rather than hiding any previously one-time items.

After discussion, Council President Keating moved and Councilor Groves seconded a motion to direct the city manager to bring back potential strategies to address $11,500,000 in annual general fund reductions. The motion carried on an 8–0 vote. The council later voted to withhold a final decision about prioritization at the next meeting (motion passed 7–1) and directed the city manager to return two specific allocation scenarios for council discussion: (1) allocation of the $11,500,000 proportional to each department’s current share of the general fund and (2) allocation that preserves core public-safety services. That motion also passed 8–0.

Councilors and staff discussed process and timing. The city manager said staff can prepare the requested scenarios to show how reductions would look if applied proportionally and how they would look if core police and fire programs were preserved; she cautioned that a fully surgical, program-by-program list would take more time to prepare. Councilors asked for clarity about whether the amounts shown are annual (they are) and reminded colleagues that a biennium means those annual amounts will double when shown across two fiscal years.

The council’s direction will inform the budget the city manager must present for the May adoption timeline. The city manager noted that if no new revenue source is adopted before July 1, layoffs or other personnel reductions could be required to balance the budget, because reserves would not cover prolonged gaps.

Votes at a glance: the council approved three formal actions related to this agenda item. On Jan. 15 the body voted 8–0 to direct the city manager to bring back potential strategies to address $11,500,000 in annual general fund reductions; it later voted 7–1 not to make a prioritization decision at next week’s meeting; and it voted 8–0 to direct staff to return two allocation scenarios (proportional and one preserving core public safety) for council discussion.

The council paused its prioritization decision for a later meeting to allow more complete information and fuller participation by council members. Staff promised to return the requested scenarios and clarifications, including how proposed program reductions would interact with cost-recovery revenues and cross-funded programs, and to identify any restrictions on using non-general-fund revenues for certain program functions.

The council closed the Jan. 15 work session after approving the direction to staff; the council did not adopt final budget cuts at this meeting.