Tualatin council debates braided funding options for climate action plan; staff to return with household impact estimates

City staff and councilors debated funding options on May 12 to pay for implementation of Tualatin’s Climate Action Plan and a proposed staff position to manage it. Sherilyn Lambos, the city manager, presented Echo Northwest’s analysis of revenue options and the cost to fully fund the program at roughly $250,000 per year (including a staff position and implementation seed money).

The analysis presented three primary funding tools the city should explore further: modest increases to franchise (right-of-way) fees on utilities, a surcharge on building permit fees, and a voluntary utility-bill round-up program modeled on Memphis’s “Share the Pennies.” Echo Northwest’s scenarios included small franchise-fee increases (0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%), a 5% surcharge on building permit fees, and a round-up-style charge approximated as either $0.49 or $0.99 per customer per bill because the city’s billing system does not support automatic rounding.

Sherilyn Lambos told the council that the climate plan adopted last year includes 146 actions across adaptation and mitigation and that successful implementation will require a dedicated staff resource. “I foresee this position being responsible for implementing programs, coordinating activities, developing long range plans, and engaging with the public,” she said. The administration proposed placing the position in the city manager’s office and budgeting $250,000 to fully fund year-one program costs, including consultant support and seed funds.

Councilors repeatedly asked for more granular fiscal impacts before choosing a funding mix. Councilor Sacco said she could not decide on a path without knowing how a franchise-fee increase would affect an average household. Sherilyn Lambos said staff would follow up with per-household/pass-through estimates. Council discussion leaned toward a braided approach to improve revenue stability: a modest franchise-fee increase (councilors discussed 0.3% as a compromise), a small surcharge on building permits, and a voluntary round-up option.

Councilor Brooks and others favored mixing sources to capture commercial contributions and provide a steadier revenue stream; Councilor Gonzalez recommended starting with the voluntary round-up to test community support. Several councilors voiced concerns about relying solely on a voluntary program because participation rates can vary and city hiring requires predictable ongoing revenue. Some members also asked staff to assemble existing efficiency and savings estimates from prior city projects (for example, lighting or other implemented measures) to help measure net benefits.

Council direction: staff will return with the requested clarifying information (estimated household impact of franchise-fee changes, historical building-permit revenue volatility and comparisons with peer cities, updated revenue scenarios for round-up amounts including a $1.00–$1.50 option, and any available estimates of program efficiencies/savings) so council can make final decisions before the budget adoption deadline. The budget currently includes the position pending a decision; if council does not identify ongoing funding, the position would be removed from the budget.