Eugene City Council weighs short-term fee options, asks staff to study stormwater path

EUGENE, Ore. — The Eugene City Council spent its May 14 work session focused on whether to adopt a temporary fee to restore services cut from the biennial budget and, if so, how much to collect and for how long.

City Manager Sarah opened the session by flagging the scale of the problem and the costs of implementing a fee, saying “it's going to be close to a million dollars to set it up. And it's probably going to be a million or more to collect it annually.” That implementation cost, she warned, reduces net revenue available to restore services if the fee runs only a short time.

Why it matters: Councilors were weighing whether a temporary fee could bridge $6 million–$8 million in annual service restorations identified in the amended budget — items such as library hours, pools, the animal services contract and alternative response funding — versus choosing a smaller, faster-to-implement option built on the city's stormwater billing system.

Council debate and staff analysis

Assistant City Manager Matt Rodriguez summarized staff work mapping cuts and add‑backs, telling council that the items commonly raised by the public and councilors would total about $6.3 million per year to restore under one model, not including administration costs. Rodriguez also explained a stormwater-based approach that would use existing stormwater account and methodology to capture a smaller amount more quickly: "you could afford… about $4,700,000" on an ongoing basis if parks elements in the general fund were moved into the stormwater mechanism, with roughly $1.1 million in one-time funds available to help bridge near-term gaps.

Councilors debated three linked questions: target amount, duration (sunset) and distributional effects. Several councilors said they prefer a larger amount closer to the $8 million the manager described as the level needed to restore services the amended budget removed. Councilor Kaczynski said, “I am not interested in anything that doesn't fully restore the the services, that are in that amended budget.” Other members favored smaller or mixed approaches as a political and financial compromise.

Timing and duration were central to the discussion. Multiple councilors said a short sunset (one to two years) would both increase per-dollar administrative overhead and leave the city back where it started; several urged a longer duration so the city could pursue long-term revenue work. Suggestions ranged from a minimum of four years up to views favoring longer terms (six to 10 years) to reduce repeated biennial budget disruption.

Services at stake and trade-offs

Staff and councilors repeatedly noted specific programs and contracts mentioned in the amended budget: reductions to library hours, closure of Amazon Pool and Sheldon Community Center in the proposed budget, reduced funding for the Office of Equity and Community Engagement and neighborhood services, a reduced animal services contract (the animal welfare unit differential of about $200,000 was highlighted), the homeless services team (funded in year one but not in year two of the biennium), parks engagement and maintenance, and alternative response coordination and contract funding.

City staff cautioned that as the revenue target drops, the per-dollar cost of implementation rises and the city would have to use one-time reserves to bridge collections while the fee is set up. The city manager noted that the current biennial budget built on prior reductions and that some cuts (about $3.5 million in the amended budget, and larger prior reductions over multiple years) are already in place.

Council action and next steps

Council took two formal steps at the meeting. First, it directed staff to return May 21 with information on a stormwater-based option estimated to generate about $4.7 million ongoing and about $1.1 million in one-time funds, including what would have to be cut to reach that revenue level. That motion passed 7–1.

Second, council directed the city manager to prepare a draft ordinance consistent with material in the meeting packet (attachment A) that would outline alternative fee scenarios (staff were asked to include $6 million and $8 million scenarios with a four-year sunset in the draft) and return for further discussion May 21; that motion also passed 7–1.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Direct city manager to bring back information on a stormwater fee option (approx. $4,700,000 ongoing; $1,100,000 one-time) with a four-year sunset — Outcome: passed, tally reported 7 yes, 1 no (mover: Councilor Clark; second: not specified). Note: staff will include what cuts would be required under this path.

- Motion: Direct city manager to prepare an ordinance consistent with attachment A (bring back draft ordinance showing alternative fee scenarios, including $6M and $8M options, and schedule further discussion/public hearing on May 21) — Outcome: passed, tally reported 7 yes, 1 no (mover: Councilor Evans; second: Councilor Leach).

What was not decided

Council did not adopt a fee or ordinance at the May 14 session. The meeting produced direction to staff to prepare options and a draft ordinance and to return May 21 for further discussion; councilors emphasized they expect to see the cut lists tied to each revenue scenario and analyses of administrative costs, distributional impacts between businesses and residents, and timing for implementation.

The council also asked staff to make clearer the long-term implications in the six-year forecast and how different durations and amounts would affect reserves, credit metrics and future biennia.

Next steps

Staff will return May 21 with a draft ordinance and separate materials analyzing the stormwater pathway, the revenue each path would generate, the one-time bridging options staff could use and the specific services that would remain funded or be cut under each scenario. Councilors indicated they want that package to include cut lists showing which items would be eliminated under smaller revenue scenarios and the timeline for implementation and public hearing scheduling.

(Reporting by city staff presentations and council floor discussion at the May 14, 2025 Eugene City Council work session; no public comment period is included in work sessions.)