Council debates options, timelines and potential off-ramps for referendum on fire fee; staff to return with alternatives

The Eugene City Council spent the bulk of its April 21 meeting in a work session discussing options related to referendum petition 2025-1, the public referral opposing a city ordinance commonly described in public discussion as a “fire fee.” Councilors debated whether to keep the existing ordinance in place, pursue an alternative ordinance, or repeal the measure and let voters decide.

City Manager opened the work session noting council had previously requested dedicated time to explore “what an alternative path might look like,” and offered that staff could return with timelines and draft options if the council provided direction.

Councilors debated three recurring themes: whether to treat any change as a short-term, time-limited (sunset) solution or as ongoing revenue; whether funds should be strictly dedicated to fire services or broader general-fund priorities; and how to balance simplicity of implementation with protections for low-income households and business impacts.

Councilor Kaczynski said, “I would be very uncomfortable with a repeal,” and expressed support for short-term revenue to avoid deep service cuts, arguing that some fire services cannot be funded with one-time dollars. Councilor Clark countered that long-term policy choices to grow the permanent tax base are preferable to short-term revenue measures, and warned that replacing one fee with another without voter input “would be an insult” to electors who referred the matter. Councilor Yeh said she favored a time-limited sunset and suggested a period “around” four to six years would give the council time to plan; she also raised reconsidering the $2,000,000 additional allocation to the fire department.

Councilor Zelenka asked staff for precise cost and timeline information, including the estimated election cost (noted in staff materials as “over a quarter million dollars”) and deadlines for an August special election versus the November general election. City staff responded that to pursue an emergency (August) election the city must file certain paperwork with the county by July 10 and that to place a measure on the November ballot staff would file by September 3 if the council had not repealed the ordinance earlier.

Councilors and staff discussed implementation mechanics for alternatives. Staff confirmed that a repeal is not required before drafting and holding public hearings for a different ordinance; any new ordinance would still need public hearings and adoption steps. The city manager noted that meeting packet timelines set the May 28 deadline for the ordinance title and that May 21 was effectively the last date to forward a new ordinance to a June 16 public hearing under the calendar discussed.

Several councilors recommended additional guardrails if an alternative measure were pursued: a clear sunset or review date (suggested ranges by councilors ran from two to ten years, with several mentions of four to six years), enhanced accountability such as a citizen oversight panel or audits modeled on prior road and park measures, and clearer naming so voters understand whether a fee is dedicated to fire services or to broader city services.

On the question of reserves and bridging the budget gap, staff said the city has identified roughly $8,000,000 in one-time dollars that could be used as a bridge, but cautioned such reserves should not be relied on as a permanent solution. The city manager warned that new revenue would not be collected immediately: any newly adopted fee would be months from generating full revenue, so timing matters for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

After extended discussion the council voted to direct the city manager to schedule additional work sessions for further discussion; the motion to schedule a work session on April 28 (and further sessions referenced for May 14) passed unanimously by an 8 to 0 vote.

Councilors repeatedly emphasized a desire to pursue additional information quickly if the majority of the council wishes to consider an alternative ordinance, while also recognizing some council members are reluctant to short-circuit the electorate’s referral. Staff agreed to return with options, implementation timelines, sample ordinance language and cost modeling for the next work sessions.