City budget debate centers on proposed fire‑service fee as residents demand vote, council warns of cuts without revenue

Eugene City Council discussion and a long public comment period on April 14 turned heavily to a proposed fire service fee the city says is needed to avoid roughly $11.5 million in general‑fund cuts. Opponents gathered tens of thousands of petition signatures to refer the fee to voters; supporters said the measure—or a similar revenue solution—is required to prevent layoffs and program cuts.

Why it matters: Council staff and several councilors described a range of planned reductions that would be necessary if the new revenue is not adopted. Speakers from business, nonprofit and resident groups said they prefer a public vote or a different, more transparent budgeting process; others urged immediate adoption to preserve services.

Details from the meeting: Councilors and staff described prior budget reductions and the limited options remaining. One councilor summarized the potential cuts, saying the city might eliminate the animal‑welfare program, close the library one to two days per week, reduce park maintenance, scale back homelessness and human‑services funding, cut youth sports, and close community centers or a fire station if the fee is not approved.

Public input: More than 8,400 people signed a petition to refer the ordinance to voters. Business leaders and the Chamber of Commerce urged repeal of the fee ordinance and proposed a collaborative approach that would realign spending and prioritize revenue growth. Several speakers asked the council to "repeal the ordinance and pursue an alternative path" that adopts a priority‑based budgeting process rather than adding a permanent fee without public approval.

Competing views in the record: - Brittney QuickWarner, CEO of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber supports the city but urged the council to "repeal the ordinance and instead take a strategic approach, aligning expenses with revenues through innovation and prioritization." - Multiple public commenters said the fee would be a permanent burden and called for time‑limited revenues or ballot consideration. - Councilors who support the fee emphasized the scale of the budget gap and said cuts would be severe without new revenue; one councilor asked residents to "vote for the fire fee, which is essential to keeping CAHOOTS." (Councilors also noted CAHOOTS is funded through other city streams; restoring CAHOOTS without new revenue would be difficult, they said.)

Process and next steps: The ordinance has been referred to a public petition and will be decided according to the city’s procedures if the referral proceeds. Several councilors called for a broader, transparent budgeting process and for cooperation with community partners to seek alternative revenue or reprioritize expenditures.

Ending note: The meeting underscored divided public sentiment. Speakers from across the political and civic spectrum asked the council to either let voters decide or adopt a different, comprehensive budgeting approach that matches long‑term revenues to city services.