Council weighs options for Referendum Petition 2025-1: emergency election, November vote or temporary fee

Eugene City Council on April 28 continued deliberations about options for Responding to Referendum Petition 2025‑1, including whether to let the measure go to the November ballot, pursue an earlier emergency election, repeal the ordinance that is the subject of the referendum, or adopt an alternative temporary fee or ordinance as a compromise. Council did not take final action; staff outlined timelines, fiscal trade-offs and administration challenges for each path.

City Manager (presenting) summarized the calendar and assumptions: if the council takes no additional action the referendum would appear on the November 4 ballot; Lane County told staff that an August 26 special election is not available except as an emergency election, which has a different timeline; and the deadline to notify Lane County to avoid inclusion on the ballot (by formally repealing the ordinance) is September 3. The manager said the earliest possible effective schedule for an emergency election path would require immediate steps and that the city could potentially reach an emergency-election vote as early as late July only if council moves quickly.

The city manager warned council members about the budget consequences of delaying a decision. She described the city’s reserve for revenue shortfall (adopted in the current forecast at about $10,000,000) and said the city’s six-year forecast would show a material deficit if short-term revenues expire. Using staff illustrations, the manager said a six-year temporary fee that then drops off would create a projected biennial shortfall of roughly $17,000,000 in the next biennium if no other action is taken; a four-year drop-off scenario showed a roughly $12,800,000 operating gap. Staff said that bridging to a November vote would require roughly $1,000,000 per month from July until the election to hold existing services, and that any new fee or ordinance would take about 6–8 months after it is effective before billing and collection begin.

Councilors repeatedly expressed a preference for a November-schedule vote rather than an emergency approach. Councilor Yeh said, "November would be a better choice if we're gonna if we're looking at those 2 options." Councilor Groves and others said they wanted time for a careful public process rather than a rushed emergency vote.

Several councilors and staff discussed design details of a possible compromise ordinance or temporary fee. City staff presented components that an alternate proposal could include: a temporary city services stabilization fee with a clear sunset; a revenue target (staff noted the council’s proposed budget included $8,000,000 in stabilizing funds plus $2,000,000 in new revenue as a reference point); different methods for calculating fees (square footage, water/electric billing classes, or per-customer rates); and accountability measures such as a community advisory process in the fall to inform the longer-term budget work. Councilor Keating objected to the word "temporary" in naming, saying, "The word temporary makes me think that I would be supporting something that is temporary, that the services would be temporary." He urged language that emphasizes municipal services and urgency.

Councilors also questioned operational matters. Will Doughty was not the fiscal lead on this topic, but staff said development-fee trust payments to date total about $400,000 from one project and additional payments will flow only after projects reach tax-exemption triggers. Staff said a hiring freeze is already in effect in practice (vacant positions are being held), and that the amended budget proposed by staff would eliminate roughly 35–40 full-time equivalent positions, with union and nonrepresented timelines governing layoff notice and bumping rights.

Councilor Clark confirmed a legal limitation discussed in the meeting: a charter amendment currently caps the payroll tax at its present rate, which prevents council from increasing the payroll tax as a revenue option without charter change.

Staff repeatedly cautioned that delaying revenue certainty can affect the city’s financial metrics and credit rating (Moody’s). The manager described Moody’s interest in governance and fiscal planning and said repeated use of one-time reserves to fund ongoing services would raise credit risk and could increase borrowing costs.

No motions were taken on the referendum topic at the April 28 meeting. Staff asked council to clarify whether the body wanted to pursue an emergency path, prepare an alternate ordinance, or allow the referendum to proceed to November; councilors indicated a range of preferences but voiced a common interest in further community engagement and careful budget analysis.

Ending: Council scheduled further discussion (including a May 14 work session and budget-related meetings) and staff said it will return with more detailed analyses of fee methodologies, projected revenues, legal timelines and proposed accountability mechanisms to inform council’s next steps.